Far Eastern Studies Vol.7 May 2008 Center for Far Eastern Studies, University of Toyama
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000: Analysis by intermediate input according to sector Dan Jin1*and Yantian Chen** Abstract This paper attempts to interpret the situation surrounding the development of regional economy integration in East Asia by examining the degree of self-dependency and dependency on foreign countries in this region by using the International Input-Output (IIO) approach. We show that the economic interdependency in East Asia grew stronger from 1990 to 2000, with a strong upturn of the interdependency on China and Korea, and a downturn of dependency on Japan in this region. Moreover, our analysis suggests that dependency on foreign countries is increasing and self-dependency is decreasing. ASEAN4 was largely dependent on Japan, China and Korea, whereas Japan, China and Korea were largely dependent on other countries. From the fall of self-dependency in the heavy industries sectors and the decrease of dependency in sectors like the iron and steel, we can know that the economic effect of ASEAN4, China, Korea and Japan is seeping into other regions. Therefore, strong efforts should be made to strengthen the economic cooperation in this region in the future. Keywords: self-dependency and dependency structure, International InputOutput Model
1.
Introduction In the world economy of the 1990s, world trade led to more and more prosperity, and the
meaning and effects of regionalism and globalism were often debated by economists. In East Asia, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) had been the sole regional cooperation system since its establishment in 1967. In addition, Northeast Asia which includes Japan, China and South Korea experienced a high economic growth for the few decades before the 1990s and regional trade had expanded substantially. However, the regional economic integration in East Asia takes fell behind that occurring in the EU and NAFTA. As the greatest trade zone, precincts trade in the EU and NAFTA accounted for one-third of world trade. The EU aimed at expanding the local market by increasing member nations. Moreover, led by the United States, the economic integration between South and North America had been developed. The ratio of the regional commerce traded in the two areas was over 40% of world trade. However the same ratio of ASEAN4, China, Japan and Korea was 5.4%.2 1
㧖Center for Far Eastern Studies, University of Toyama, 3190 Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan E-mail:
[email protected] ** Yokohama National University, 79-3, Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama, 240-8501, Japan E-mail:
[email protected] 2 See NIRA (2003).
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
As this situation, it will be indispensable to reinforce economic assistance and deepen cooperation in East Asia. Many economic studies have examined the interdependency relations in East Asian areas. For instance, Aoki (2005), in a study of seven sectors from 1990-1995, concluded that economic integration in East Asia had progressed and that the international division of labor, especially the regional division of labor, had been reorganized constantly by much more intensification of growth-of-industrial-structure competition, and that the regional horizontal division of labor had appeared to progress. Examining 78 sectors from 1990 to 1995, Fujita (2006) extended the VS (vertical specialization share) model, and stated that the international division of labor in East Asia had certainly progressed. On the other hand, in a study of 3 sectors from 1985 to 2000, Fujikawa, Shimoda and Watanabe (2006) insisted that most East Asian countries showed decreasing trends in home production rates, and that a large amount of their value-added had not remained within the East Asian region, concluding that it would still be premature to regard the East Asian region as an independent economic community. Hasebe and Shrestha (2006), using 19 sectors from 1985 to 2000 [where the year 2000 is an extended table estimated by Takagawa and Okada (2004)], studied the degree of economic integration in East Asia, taking into account the direct and indirect effects, the exogenous country effect and the size effect of the economy. They also insisted that the average self-dependence in the region had declined, but that the average dependence on other regional partners had increased and the regional interdependence had deepened although the extent of dependence was small. However, no studies have examined the extent of the economic relations and the level of interdependency among ASEAN4, China, Japan and Korea both at a more detailed sector level with more recent data. To fill this gap, this paper attempts to interpret the situation surrounding the development of regional economic integration in East Asia, especially among ASEAN4, China, Japan and Korea from 1990 to 2000, by using the International Input-Output (IIO) approach to examine the degree of self-dependency and dependency on foreign countries in the region. Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs) and ASEAN have been recording rapid economic growth since the 1970s and 1980s. With the appreciation of the yen in 1985, Japanese enterprises’ overseas local production, especially manufacturing’s, progressed and which contributed to the development of the East Asian nation’s economy by the form of direct equity investment. With the collapse of the Japan’s economic bubble in the early 1990s, Japan fell into a prolonged recession. In contrast, substantial high growth of the Chinese economy started after the middle of 1980s, and with the real entry of China into world trade, the expension of Chinese international commerce has continued since 1990s. The East Asian nations pulled the world economic growth, and became an important region to the world economy. However, the Asian monetary crisis in 1997 influenced the economy of each country in this region through the connection such as the intraregional trade and the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Since then, Asian nations have worked on the deregulation of trade and the regional economic integration, aiming at recovering from the crisis and avoiding its
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
reappearance.3 In the next couple of paragraphs, we use the world trade matrix published by JETRO on the Web to examine the interdependency of trade relations between each country. Table 1
The trade matrix of the East Asian countries from export aspect (1990-2000)
1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇 to from 㫋㫆㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄 ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 China 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 Korea 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
($1,000,000) 㩿㩻㪈㪃㪇㪇㪇㪃㪇㪇㪇㪀 ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 3,612 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪃㪍㪈㪉 1,830 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪃㪏㪊㪇 3,256 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪃㪉㪌㪍 22,241 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪉㪉㪃㪉㪋㪈
China Korea㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 World㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 1,784 3,346 㪊㪃㪊㪋㪍 21,020 86,361 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪃㪎㪏㪋 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪈㪃㪇㪉㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪏㪍㪃㪊㪍㪈 433 62,760 㪄㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪋㪊㪊 9,210 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪐㪃㪉㪈㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪍㪉㪃㪎㪍㪇 12,638 67,812 㪄㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪉㪃㪍㪊㪏 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪍㪎㪃㪏㪈㪉 6,145 287,678 㪄 㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪍㪃㪈㪋㪌 17,500 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪎㪃㪌㪇㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪉㪏㪎㪃㪍㪎㪏
㪈㪐㪐㪌 1995
㫋㫆㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄 to from 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 ASEAN4 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 China 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Korea 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 Japan
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 ASEAN4
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪇㪃㪎㪏㪎 10,787 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪌㪃㪌㪇㪈 5,501 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪐㪃㪏㪉㪐 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷9,829 㪌㪊㪃㪌㪐㪇
53,590
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 China
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪌㪃㪋㪏㪉 5,482 㪄 㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪐㪃㪈㪋㪋 9,144 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪈㪃㪐㪊㪋
Korea㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㩿㩻㪈㪃㪇㪇㪇㪃㪇㪇㪇㪀 ($1,000,000) World㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪍㪃㪈㪎㪍 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪊㪊㪃㪎㪇㪊 6,176 33,703 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪍㪃㪍㪏㪏 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪏㪃㪋㪍㪍 6,688㪄 28,466 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪎㪃㪇㪋㪏 17,048 㪄 㪄 㪊㪈㪃㪉㪐㪉 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷
21,934
㪄
31,292
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪐㪊㪃㪎㪉㪊 193,723 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪋㪏㪃㪐㪌㪌 148,955 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪊㪈㪃㪊㪈㪉 131,312 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪋㪋㪊㪃㪇㪋㪎
443,047
㩿㩻㪈㪃㪇㪇㪇㪃㪇㪇㪇㪀
2000 㫋㫆㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 to from 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 ASEAN4 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 China 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 Korea Japan
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 ASEAN4 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪏㪃㪏㪇㪊 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪐㪃㪊㪊㪌 18,803 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷9,335 㪈㪉㪃㪊㪐㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪌㪃㪊㪏㪈
12,395 45,381
㪫㪿㪼㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㩷㫆㪽㩷㪼㫏㫇㪸㫅㫊㫀㫆㫅
($1,000,000) 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻 China Korea Japan World 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪐㪃㪉㪍㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪐㪃㪐㪐㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪉㪃㪐㪍㪏 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪍㪎㪃㪋㪉㪇 㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪈㪃㪍㪌㪋 9,265 9,990㪈㪈㪃㪉㪐㪊 42,968 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪏㪃㪋㪌㪌 㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 11,293 41,654 㪉㪇㪃㪋㪍㪍 㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪊㪇㪃㪊㪌㪍 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪊㪇㪃㪎㪇㪊 㪄
㪄 30,703
18,455 30,356
20,466 㪄
The ratio of expansion 䋨㪈㪐㪐㪇㪄㪉㪇㪇㪇䋩 䋨1990-2000䋩
㫋㫆㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄 to from 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 ASEAN4 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 China 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Korea 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 Japan
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 ASEAN4 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪌㪅㪉 5.2 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪌㪅㪈 5.1 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪏 3.8 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪉㪅㪇 2.0
䋨㫋㫀㫄㪼㫊䋩
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 Korea㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 World㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻 China 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪇 2.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪅㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 5.2 㪌㪅㪉 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 3.0 3.1 㪊㪅㪈 㪄㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪅㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 26.1 㪉㪍㪅㪈 4.5 4.0 㪋㪅㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪍 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 1.6 2.5 㪉㪅㪌 㪄㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪅㪏 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 4.9 㪋㪅㪐 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 1.8 1.7 㪈㪅㪎 㪄 㪄
䋨㫋㫀㫄㪼㫊䋩 䋨times䋩 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 ASEAN4
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 China
Korea㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪇 3.0 3.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪇 3.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪇 2.4 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪉㪅㪋
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 3.1 㪊㪅㪈 㪄㪄
3.6 㪊㪅㪍 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪅㪏 1.8 15.4 㪈㪌㪅㪋 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪄㪄 1.8 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪅㪏
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 World㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪍 1.6 3.1 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪊㪅㪈 1.3 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪊 㪄 㪄
䋨1995-2000䋩 䋨㪈㪐㪐㪌㪄㪉㪇㪇㪇䋩 to from 㫋㫆㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄 ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 China 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 Korea 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
171,826 478,179
䋨times䋩
䋨㪈㪐㪐㪇㪄㪈㪐㪐㪌䋩 䋨1990-1995䋩 㫋㫆㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄 to from ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 China 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 Korea 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪉㪋㪐㪃㪈㪐㪌 267,420 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪎㪈㪃㪏㪉㪍 249,195 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪎㪏㪃㪈㪎㪐
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 2.2 㪉㪅㪉 2.4 㪉㪅㪋 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 1.9 㪈㪅㪐 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 1.5 㪈㪅㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷
䋨times䋩 䋨㫋㫀㫄㪼㫊䋩 ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
China 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
Korea㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan
1.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪅㪎 1.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪎 1.3 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪊 0.8 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪇㪅㪏
1.7 㪈㪅㪎 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪄㪄 2.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪅㪇 1.4 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪋
1.6 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪅㪍 1.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪈㪅㪎 㪄 㪄 1.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪇
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
World㪮㫆㫉㫃㪻
1.3 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪊 1.5 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪌 1.2 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪉 㪄 㪄
1.4 㪈㪅㪋 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 1.7 㪈㪅㪎 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 1.3 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪊 1.1 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪅㪈
Source: JETRO (Japan), World Trade Matrix.
Table 1 shows the trade matrix from 1990 to 2000, where the highlighted (shaded) values indicate an expansion of more than five times. The expansion on the trade between China and 3
See Okamoto, Inomata and others (2006).
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
Japan, and that between China and ASEAN4 was remarkable. Compared with the beginning of the 1990s, the ratio of expansion in the late 1990s tended to decline. It may be said it would still be unwise to regard East Asian economy as an ‘independent’ or ‘self-circulating’ economy at the present time. Table 2 shows the change with the same trade matrix by using magnifying power. We can read the following things. ٨
Japan, China and Korea: The share of exports to ASEAN4 showed an upward trend.
٨
ASEAN4: The share of exports to Japan and Korea declined, but the share of exports to
China rose. ٨
China: The share of exports to ASEAN4 and Korea showed few change. The share of
exports to Japan deteriorated in comparison with 1995. ٨
Korea: The share of exports to Japan deteriorated, but the share of exports to ASEAN4 and
China showed an upward trend. ٨
Japan: The share of exports to ASEAN4, China and Korea showed an upward trend. Table 2
䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭䇭 from 㪽㫉㫆㫄 ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 China
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
Korea
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Japan
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
The change of the export of East Asian countries㧔㧑㧕 to 1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇 1995 㪈㪐㪐㪌 2000 㪉㪇㪇㪇 1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇 1995 㪈㪐㪐㪌 2000 㪉㪇㪇㪇 1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇 1995 㪈㪐㪐㪌 2000 㪉㪇㪇㪇 1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇 1995 㪈㪐㪐㪌 2000
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㫋㫆 ASEAN4 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 China 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 4.2 㪋㪅㪉 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 2.1㪉㪅㪈 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 5.6 2.8㪉㪅㪏 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪌㪅㪍 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 7.0 㪎㪅㪇 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 3.5㪊㪅㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 2.9 㪉㪅㪐 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 3.7 㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪊㪅㪎 㪄 3.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪊㪅㪎 4.8 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪄 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪅㪏 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪄 7.5 7.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪎㪅㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪎㪅㪇 7.2 10.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪎㪅㪉 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪇㪅㪎 7.7 2.1 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪎㪅㪎 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪉㪅㪈 12.1 5.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪉㪅㪈 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪌㪅㪇 9.5 6.3 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪐㪅㪌 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪍㪅㪊
Korea 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 3.9 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪐 3.2 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪉 3.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪊㪅㪎 0.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷 㪇㪅㪎 4.5 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪅㪌 4.5 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪋㪅㪌
㪄
㪄
6.1
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪍㪅㪈 7.1 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪎㪅㪈 6.4 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪍㪅㪋
Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷24.3 㪉㪋㪅㪊 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷17.4 㪈㪎㪅㪋 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷16.1 㪈㪍㪅㪈 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷14.7 㪈㪋㪅㪎 19.1 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪐㪅㪈 16.7 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪍㪅㪎 18.6 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪏㪅㪍 13.0 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪊㪅㪇 11.9 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪈㪈㪅㪐
㪄
㪄
In general, the degree of each country’s export dependency on Japan still occupied an absolute ratio, but the degree got weakened. Contrastively, the presence of China became larger. In addition, owing to the expansion of final demand and the supplies of the intermediate goods, such as raw materials, motor parts and electronic parts, inports flourished in East Asia. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the various kinds of trade structures that emerged in East Asia in each industry according to sectors, taking into consideration not only direct transaction effect but also indirect transaction effect. So we examine the structure through the IIO approach which can show both direct transaction effect and indirect transaction effect at a more detailed sector level with more recent data.
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
2.
Methods and Data
We adopted the IIO model for the analysis of interdependency in East Asia as it is designed to reflect direct and indirect interaction effects between production sectors as well as between countries. In addition, it is a popular methodology for studying the economic interdependency at the production sector levels. Despite its strength and popularity, however, there is not much research that has used the IIO framework, which may be partly because of the time lag and the availability of the IIO table4. The International Input-Output table, which is the basis of the International Input-Output framework, provides information about the transaction of intermediate goods and final goods across each production sector and each endogenous country. Further it provides information about the import of intermediate input goods from the exogenous country to each production sector of each endogenous country. The most popular approach in the IIO analysis is the Leontief method, which uses the requirement matrix B5. By multiplying the requirement matrix B with final demand F (which is constituted by private consumption, government consumption, gross fixed capital formation and changes in stocks), we can calculate the interdependency on the size effect. On the other hand, the International Input-Output study includes the direct and indirect effects of the production sector from the endogenous countries only, it completely ignores the effect of the import of intermediate input goods from the exogenous countries. Hasebe (2002) studied the international dependency in East Asian countries for 1985, 1990 and 1995 by using Total Intermediate Input method. Fujikawa, Shimoda and Watanabe (2006) studied the structure of international division of labor in the Asia Pacific region, with the division of labor measure based on value added. The main difference of the two studies lies in the definition of the dependency measure, as we use the international dependency measure based on Total Intermediate Input Method. The total intermediate input requirement matrix (D)6 is derived as follows. According to the definition of total intermediate input coefficient matrix A, intermediate input goods required to produce unit output in each sector of endogenous countries is simply given by the matrix A as
é Ad ù ê Awú = A ë û where Ad represents the intermediate input coefficient matrix for endogenous countries and Aw represents that for exogenous countries. By multiplying the Leontief inverse matrix (B) with the total intermediate input coefficient matrix A, we can get the total intermediate inputs 4 5 6
See Hasebe and Shrestha (2006). This is the Leontief inverse matrix of the intermediate input coefficient matrix A. See Hasebe (2002) for a detailed description of the model.
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
that is necessary to produce one unit output of final demand in endogenous countries at each sector, and which concludes both direct and indirect interaction effects, and does not ignore the imports from exogenous countries.
é Ad ù ê Awú · B = D ë û Considering the input structure of a particular production sector and country (i.e., the column for corresponding sector and country) from matrix D and calculating the share of inputs from each country, we can obtain the dependency structure (i.e., the international division of labor) for that particular production sector. And the ratio that own country accounts for is called self-dependency or local contents. And to measure the dependency structure using the IIO model, not only the intermediate input but also the final demand should be analyzed. So in the same time, we also study the dependency structure in the final demand with direct and indirect effects by multiplying the Leontief inverse matrix (B) with the finaldemand matrix of each country. This will show us how much each country’s production is dependent on the final demand of its own country or that of a foreign country. We used the Asian IIO tables for years 1990, 1995 and 2000 published by the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE). These tables comprise data for 10 endogenous countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and USA)7, and tow exogenous countries (Hong Kong and Rest of the World). We also integrated the three tables into 63 production sectors for analysis. 8 Incidentally, the statistical data for year 2000 which is collected by a survey in most of countries is reliable enough.
3.
Results
Figure 1 shows how much of each country’s production was dependent on its own final demand in 1990-2000. It can be summarized as following: Note that the Japan’s ratios were quite high. Take 2000 as an example, the Japan’s ratio was 87.1%, while China and Indonesia also showed relatively high ratios of self-dependency of 78.3% and 66.8%, respectively. From 1990 to 1995, the ratios for Indonesia, Korea and Japan increased slightly, by 1.7%, 0.3% and 1.6%, respectively. Overall, the ratios of self-dependency based on final demand reduced and the ratios of dependency on foreign countries based on final demand tended to rise.
7
Singapore re-exports most of its imports, and, for political reasons, there is no export data from China to Taiwan in the AIIO table of 1990, so we aim our analysis at ASEAN4, China, Korea and Japan. 8 See Appendix 1for details of production sectors and Appendix 2 for details of integrated sectors.
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
Figure 1
Self dependency based on the final demand
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸
㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸
㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪉㪇㪇㪇
From the data in Fig.2, we know that ASEAN4 raised its dependency on China, Korea and Japan, while Korea and Japan raised its dependency on China. On the other hand, China reduced its dependency on ASEAN4, Korea and Japan.9 In general, from 1990 to 1995, the dependency on foreign countries based on the final demand of the four (ASEAN4, China, Korea and Japan) showed a strong tendency to rise. In addition, ASEAN4 depended on China, Korea and Japan greatly, but China, Korea and Japan depended on areas other than ASEAN4.10 Figure 2 Dependency based on final demand 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸㩷
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋㩷 㪉㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅㩷
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷 㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪌㩼 㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 㪉㪇㪇㪇
Next, let's look at self-dependency based on the total intermediate input method by each country (figure 3 shows the transition for each country). 11 9
Okamoto, Inomata and others (2006) also drew almost the same conclusion. They used AIIO tables from 1995-2000, whereas we focus on ASEAN4, China, Korea and Japan using AIIO tables from 1990 to 2000. 10 See Appendix 3 for details of dependency structures based on final demand. For brevity, we unify into a column vector the final demand matrix, which is constituted by private consumption, government consumption, gross fixed capital formation and changes in stocks. 11 See figure 3 for the transition of the ratio of self-dependency of each country and Appendix 1 for the list of production sectors.
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
1㧕Indonesia From 1990 to 2000, the ratios of self-dependency on the sectors of non-food crops, spinning, basic industrial chemicals, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, non-ferrous metal, electronics and electronic products, motor vehicles, and other transport equipment tended to increase. Noteworthy is that the ratios for the sectors of spinning, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, electronics and electronic products, and other transport equipment increased largely in comparison with 1990, by 28.5%, 23.4%, 23.9% and 25.4% respectively. Compared with the peak, in 2000, the ratios of self-dependency on forestry and fishery sectors showed remarkable decreases, by 7.4% and 17.1%, respectively. In industrial sectors, the ratios of pulp and paper, refined petroleum and its products, tires and tubes, other rubber products, boilers, engines and turbines, and shipbuilding sectors decreased sharply. 2㧕Malaysia The ratios of self-dependency on the sectors of other grain, fishery, iron ore, spinning, leather and leather products, synthetic resins and fiber, refined petroleum and its products, boilers, engines and turbines, heavy electric machinery, and motor vehicles reached the top in 2000. It is particularly noteworthy that the ratios for the sectors of fishery, iron ore, boilers, engines and turbines, and heavy electric machinery increased largely, by 34.6%, 57.6%, 30.6% and 21.2%, respectively. Whereas, compared with the peak, the ratios of tobacco, tires and tubes, non-ferrous metal, and ordinary and specialized machinery sectors reduced greatly, by 40.7%, 39.7%, 31.4% and 27.4% respectively. 3㧕The Philippines The ratios of almost all sectors showed a tendency to fall from 1990 to 2000, in which the ratio of most sectors fell once in 1995, and rose again in 2000. In a few sectors (tobacco, synthetic resins and fiber, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and motor vehicles), the ratios peaked in 2000. In agriculture sectors, though the ratio of the fishery sector rose a little, others reduced at an average of 20% from 80% or so. In industrial sectors, the ratios of non-ferrous metal, metal products, electronics and electronic products, and precision machines sectors also reduced largely, by 21.4%, 15.4%, 18.1% and 28.7% respectively. 4㧕Thailand From 1990 to 2000, the ratios of self-dependency on fishery, fish products, tobacco, spinning, weaving and dyeing, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, iron and steel, and ordinary and specialized machinery sectors showed an increase tendency. Whereas, the ratios of wooden furniture, other rubber products, glass and glass products, boilers, engines and turbines, and heavy electric machinery sectors decreased by 18.0%, 17.3%, 22.7%, 10.9% and 11.4% respectively. 5㧕China The ratios of most sectors showed a tendency to fall but still remained at a high level of 80% or so. The ratios of agriculture sectors increased consistently except forestry and fishery
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸㩷 Indonesia
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
Philippines 㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊㩷
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
Malaysia 㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸㩷
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
Figure 3 The transition of the ratio of self-dependency
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
㪈㪐㪐㪇
2000 㪉㪇㪇㪇
1995 㪈㪐㪐㪌
1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪉㪇㪇㪇
2000
㪈㪐㪐㪌
1995
1990
2000
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌 1995
㪈㪐㪐㪇 1990
9
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
10
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷 㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
Japan
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
Korea 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪈㩷 㪉㩷 㪊㩷 㪋㩷 㪌㩷 㪍㩷 㪎㩷 㪏㩷 㪐㩷㪈㪇㩷㪈㪈㩷㪈㪉㩷㪈㪊㩷㪈㪋㩷㪈㪌㩷㪈㪍㩷㪈㪎㩷㪈㪏㩷㪈㪐㩷㪉㪇㩷㪉㪈㩷㪉㪉㩷㪉㪊㩷㪉㪋㩷㪉㪌㩷㪉㪍㩷㪉㪎㩷㪉㪏㩷㪉㪐㩷㪊㪇㩷㪊㪈㩷㪊㪉㩷㪊㪊㩷㪊㪋㩷㪊㪌㩷㪊㪍㩷㪊㪎㩷㪊㪏㩷㪊㪐㩷㪋㪇㩷㪋㪈㩷㪋㪉㩷㪋㪊㩷㪋㪋㩷㪋㪌㩷㪋㪍㩷㪋㪎㩷㪋㪏㩷㪋㪐㩷㪌㪇㩷㪌㪈㩷㪌㪉㩷㪌㪊㩷㪌㪋㩷㪌㪌㩷㪌㪍㩷㪌㪎㩷㪌㪏㩷㪌㪐㩷㪍㪇㩷㪍㪈㩷㪍㪉㩷㪍㪊㩷
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 China
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
2000
㪈 㪐㪐 㪇
2000 㪉 㪇㪇 㪇
㪈 㪐㪐 㪌
1995
1990
㪈㪐㪐㪌 2000 㪉㪇㪇㪇
1990 㪈㪐㪐㪇 1995
㪉㪇㪇㪇 2000
㪈㪐㪐㪌 1995
㪈㪐㪐㪇 1990
㪉㪇㪇㪇
1995
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪐㪐㪇 1990
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻 Thailand
Far Eastern Studies Vol. 7
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
sectors. In the heavy industrial sectors, the ratios of most of sectors decreased at an average of 5%, especially refined petroleum and its products sector fell 12.9%. 6㧕Korea The ratios of many sectors increased in 2000, especially the timber sector, which increased by 19.7% in comparison with 1990. In contrast, the ratio of refined petroleum and its products sector reduced 9.9% in comparison with 1990. 7㧕Japan With the peak in 1995, the ratios of almost all sectors except leather and leather products, and timber, showed a tendency to decrease from 1990 to 2000. However, the ratios of most sectors except spinning, refined petroleum and its products, and non-ferrous metal stayed at a high level. In comparison with the peak, in agricultural sectors, the ratios of most sectors showed a tendency to fall in 2000, especially the ratios of non-food crops, and fishery sectors decreased greatly. In industrial sectors, a fall in ratio at an average of 2% was observed, whereas, the ratios for boilers, engines and turbines, other transport equipment, and precision machines sectors reduced greatly by 5.1%, 5.8% and 5.9%, respectively. To summarize, from the self-dependency results obtained by using the total intermediate input method, we can conclude that in East Asia, the ratios of self-dependency in most sectors showed a tendency to decrease at after the peak of 1995. In agricultural sectors, the ratios for most East Asian countries showed a reduction tendency, expect the fishery sector in Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Korea. In industrial sectors, there was a decrease of the ratio in the sectors of refined petroleum and its products, tires and tubes, other rubber products, non-ferrous metal, metal products, ordinary and specialized machinery, heavy electric machinery, and precision machines.12 As we see in the above, it may be said that business related to intermediate goods increased between each country, especially in the heavy industries sectors, up till 2000. Next, we look at seven sectors where there was an obvious decrease of the ratio to clarify the interdependency relations of intermediate goods in East Asia. Those sectors are tires and tubes, iron and steel, ordinary and specialized machinery, heavy electric machinery, electronics and electronic products, motor vehicles, and precision machines. ٨
Tires and tubes: The ratios of ASEAN4’s dependency on Japan, China and Korea increased,
especially, the dependency on China which increased about three fold, from 4.9% to 14.5%, and the dependency on Korea, which increased over two fold, from 9.5% to 21.1% from 1990 to 2000. China and Korea increased their ratios of dependency on each other. 12
There is a reduction tendency, in refined petroleum and its products, and heavy electric machinery sectors (not include Malaysia); and in electronics and electronic products sector (except for Indonesia) and in ordinary and specialized machinery sector (not including Thailand and Korea).
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
Figure 4
The transition of the ratio of dependency on foreign countries in seven sectors
Tires and tubes㧦 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪋㪌㪅㪇㩼 㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪊㪌㪅㪇㩼 㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪌㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪌㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪌㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼 㪊㪅㪌㩼 㪊㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪅㪌㩼 㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪌㩼 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷 㪈㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪏㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Iron and steel㧦 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 㪊㪅㪌㩼
㪐㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪎㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪅㪌㩼 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷 㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪏㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪈㪅㪏㩼 㪈㪅㪍㩼 㪈㪅㪋㩼 㪈㪅㪉㩼 㪈㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪏㩼 㪇㪅㪍㩼 㪇㪅㪋㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
Ordinary and specialized machinery㧦 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪈㪍㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪋㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪏㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪅㪇㩼 㪋㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪋㩼 㪈㪅㪉㩼 㪈㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪇㪅㪏㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪇㪅㪋㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Heavy electric machinery㧦 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋 㪈㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷
㪉㪅㪌㩼
㪈㪋㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪏㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
Electronics and electronic products㧦 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪈㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪋㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼 㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪌㩼
㪉㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪈㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪌㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
Precision machines㧦 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪏㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪎㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪌㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪏㪅㪇㩼 㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
Motor vehicles㧦 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 㪎㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇 㪈㪐㪐㪌
㪈㪇㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸㩷
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪈㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪉㩼
㪈㪉㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪏㩼
㪏㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪍㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪈㪐㪐㪌 㪉㪇㪇㪇
㪇㪅㪋㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪉㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
٨
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪘㪪㪜㪘㪥㪋
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Iron and steel: The ratios of China’s dependency on ASEAN4, Korea and Japan increased,
particularly the increase of its dependency on Japan was remarkable. This is thought to be due to the increased demand for iron and steel because of the Chinese construction rush. On the other hand, except for China, the ratios of dependency on other countries in the region decreased. ٨
Ordinary and specialized machinery: The ratio of Korea’s dependency on China decreased.
ASEAN4, Korea and China decreased their dependency on Japan. However, the ratios of Japan’s dependency on the three increased. ٨
Heavy electric machinery, and electronics and electronic products: Japan raised its
dependency on the three countries, whereas ASEAN4, China and Korea decreased their dependency on Japan. It can be considered that technical knowledge of heavy electric machinery improved in ASEAN4, China and Korea. ٨
Precision machines: ASEAN4, China and Korea increased their dependency on Japan, which
showed the comparative advantage of Japan in the high-tech technical product sector. ٨
Motor vehicles: Differ from other sectors, the increase of Japan’s dependency on ASEAN4
was more remarkable than that of China and Korea. This pointed to the growth of the manufacturing industry led by the electronics and electronic products sector of ASEAN4.
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
To summarize, we can conclude the following: 1.
ASEAN4’s, China’s and Korea’s ratios of dependency on Japan was still large but declining. And trade among ASEAN4, China and Korea flourished.
2.
Trade to China and Korea from ASEAN4 increased and the dependency on China rose.
3.
The dependency of Japan on China, Korea and ASEAN4 increased.
4.
From the fall of self-dependency in the heavy industries sectors based on the total intermediate input method and the decrease of the rate of the dependency on the region in the iron and steel sector, we can know that the economic effect of ASEAN4 China, Korea and Japan leaked outside the area.
4.
Conclusions
We studied the degree of self-dependency and dependency on foreign countries in East Asia using the IIO model. Our conclusions are as follows: (1) There was a growth of ASEAN4’s and Japan’s dependency on China based on final demand and a particular increase of dependency on China based on the total intermediate input method. We can know that both the presence of China as the “world’s factory” and the presence of China as the “world’s market” rose. (2) ASEAN4 was largely dependent on Japan, China and Korea based on final demand, whereas Japan, China and Korea were largely dependent on other countries. The growth of dependency on foreign countries based on final demand can be observed. (3) The reduction of self-dependency based on the total intermediate input method can be observed. On the other hand, the dependency on Japan based on the total intermediate input method decreased. (4) The interdependency deepened in East Asia owing to increasing intermediate input, especially in the heavy industries sectors. From the growth of the dependency on ASEAN4, China and Korea in heavy electric machinery, electronics and electronic products, and motor vehicles sectors, we can conclude that the technical knowledge improved in ASEAN4, China and Korea. On the other hand, the economic effect of ASEAN4, China, Korea and Japan seeped into other regions, especially in the iron and steel sector. (5) Although the interdependency in East Asia increased, it will be indispensable to strengthen economic cooperation in this region in the future.
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
Appendix 1 Details of production sectors Details of 63 sectors 㪛㪼㫋㪸㫀㫃㫊㩷㫆㪽㩷㪍㪊㩷㫊㪼㪺㫋㫆㫉㫊 Code
Description
㪚㫆㪻㪼
1
㪈
㪛㪼㫊㪺㫉㫀㫇㫋㫀㫆㫅
Paddy
㪧㪸㪻㪻㫐
Code
Description
Code
22
Other made-up textile products
43
Metal products
44
Boilers, Engines and turbines 㪙㫆㫀㫃㪼㫉㫊㪃㩷㪜㫅㪾㫀㫅㪼㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫋㫌㫉㪹㫀㫅㪼㫊
㪚㫆㪻㪼
㪉㪉
㪛㪼㫊㪺㫉㫀㫇㫋㫀㫆㫅
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫄㪸㪻㪼㪄㫌㫇㩷㫋㪼㫏㫋㫀㫃㪼㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
㪚㫆㪻㪼
㪋㪊
Description
㪛㪼㫊㪺㫉㫀㫇㫋㫀㫆㫅
㪤㪼㫋㪸㫃㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
2
㪉
Other grain
23
Leather and leather products 㪣㪼㪸㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫃㪼㪸㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
3
㪊
Food crops
㪝㫆㫆㪻㩷㪺㫉㫆㫇㫊
24
Timber
45
㪋㪌
Ordinary and specialized machinery 㪦㫉㪻㫀㫅㪸㫉㫐㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫊㫇㪼㪺㫀㪸㫃㫀㫑㪼㪻㩷㫄㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪼㫉㫐
Non-food crops
25
Wooden furniture
46
Heavy electric machinery
Livestock and poultry
26
Other wooden products
47
Forestry
27
Pulp and paper
48
Fishery
28
Printing and publishing
49
Motor vehicles
29
6\QWKHWLFUHVLQVDQG¿EHU
50
Other transport equipment
4 5 6 7 8
㪋 㪌 㪍 㪎
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㪾㫉㪸㫀㫅
㪥㫆㫅㪄㪽㫆㫆㪻㩷㪺㫉㫆㫇㫊 㪣㫀㫍㪼㫊㫋㫆㪺㫂㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫇㫆㫌㫃㫋㫉㫐 㪝㫆㫉㪼㫊㫋㫉㫐
㪝㫀㫊㪿㪼㫉㫐 Crude petroleum and natural gas
㪉㪊 㪉㪋
㪉㪌
㪉㪍 㪉㪎 㪉㪏
㪫㫀㫄㪹㪼㫉
㪮㫆㫆㪻㪼㫅㩷㪽㫌㫉㫅㫀㫋㫌㫉㪼
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫎㫆㫆㪻㪼㫅㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 㪧㫌㫃㫇㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉
㪧㫉㫀㫅㫋㫀㫅㪾㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫇㫌㪹㫃㫀㫊㪿㫀㫅㪾
㪋㪋
㪋㪍
㪋㪎
㪋㪏
㪋㪐
㪟㪼㪸㫍㫐㩷㪼㫃㪼㪺㫋㫉㫀㪺㩷㫄㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪼㫉㫐
Electronics and electronic products 㪜㫃㪼㪺㫋㫉㫆㫅㫀㪺㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪼㫃㪼㪺㫋㫉㫆㫅㫀㪺㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 Other electric machinery and appliance 㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㪼㫃㪼㪺㫋㫉㫀㪺㩷㫄㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪼㫉㫐㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪸㫇㫇㫃㫀㪸㫅㪺㪼
㪤㫆㫋㫆㫉㩷㫍㪼㪿㫀㪺㫃㪼㫊
9
㪏
Iron ore
㪪㫐㫅㫋㪿㪼㫋㫀㪺㩷㫉㪼㫊㫀㫅㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪽㫀㪹㪼㫉 30㪉㪐 Basic industrial chemicals
㪌㪇 51
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫋㫉㪸㫅㫊㫇㫆㫉㫋㩷㪼㫈㫌㫀㫇㫄㪼㫅㫋 Shipbuilding
10
㪐
㪠㫉㫆㫅㩷㫆㫉㪼 Other metallic ore
31㪊㪇
㪌㪈 52
㪪㪿㫀㫇㪹㫌㫀㫃㪻㫀㫅㪾machines Precision
Non-metallic ore and quar㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫄㪼㫋㪸㫃㫃㫀㪺㩷㫆㫉㪼 rying
32㪊㪈 Drugs and medicine
㪚㪿㪼㫄㫀㪺㪸㫃㩷㪽㪼㫉㫋㫀㫃㫀㫑㪼㫉㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫇㪼㫊㫋㫀㪺㫀㪻㪼㫊
㪌㪉 53
Other manufacturing prod㪧㫉㪼㪺㫀㫊㫀㫆㫅㩷㫄㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪼㫊 ucts
㪛㫉㫌㪾㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫄㪼㪻㫀㪺㫀㫅㪼
54
㪌㪊
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫄㪸㫅㫌㪽㪸㪺㫋㫌㫉㫀㫅㪾㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 Electricity, gas and water supply
11 㪈㪇 12 13 14
㪈㪈 㪈㪉
㪚㫉㫌㪻㪼㩷㫇㪼㫋㫉㫆㫃㪼㫌㫄㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫅㪸㫋㫌㫉㪸㫃㩷㪾㪸㫊
㪥㫆㫅㪄㫄㪼㫋㪸㫃㫃㫀㪺㩷㫆㫉㪼㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫈㫌㪸㫉㫉㫐㫀㫅㪾
0LOOHGJUDLQDQGÀRXU
㪤㫀㫃㫃㪼㪻㩷㪾㫉㪸㫀㫅㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪽㫃㫆㫌㫉
Fish products
㪈㪊 Slaughtering, 㪝㫀㫊㪿㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊meat products
㪊㪉
33
㪊㪊
Chemical fertilizers and 㪙㪸㫊㫀㪺㩷㫀㫅㪻㫌㫊㫋㫉㫀㪸㫃㩷㪺㪿㪼㫄㫀㪺㪸㫃㫊 pesticides
Other chemical products
35
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㪺㪿㪼㫄㫀㪺㪸㫃㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 Refined petroleum and its products 㪩㪼㪽㫀㫅㪼㪻㩷㫇㪼㫋㫉㫆㫃㪼㫌㫄㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫀㫋㫊㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 Plastic products
36
34
㪊㪋
㪌㪋
55
㪌㪌
㪜㫃㪼㪺㫋㫉㫀㪺㫀㫋㫐㪃㩷㪾㪸㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫎㪸㫋㪼㫉㩷㫊㫌㫇㫇㫃㫐
Building construction
㪙㫌㫀㫃㪻㫀㫅㪾㩷㪺㫆㫅㫊㫋㫉㫌㪺㫋㫀㫆㫅
56
Other construction
Tires and tubes
57
Wholesale and retail trade
16 㪈㪌 Beverage 㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㪽㫆㫆㪻㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
37㪊㪍 Other rubber products 㪫㫀㫉㪼㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫋㫌㪹㪼㫊
58 㪌㪎
Transportation 㪮㪿㫆㫃㪼㫊㪸㫃㪼㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫉㪼㫋㪸㫀㫃㩷㫋㫉㪸㪻㪼
17 㪈㪍 Tobacco 㪙㪼㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
38㪊㪎
Cement and cement prod㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫉㫌㪹㪹㪼㫉㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 ucts
59 㪌㪏
Telephone and telecommu㪫㫉㪸㫅㫊㫇㫆㫉㫋㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅 nication
18
39
Glass and glass products
60
Finance and insurance
Other non-metallic mineral products 㪞㫃㪸㫊㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪾㫃㪸㫊㫊㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
㪌㪐
61
㪍㪇
Education and research
62
Other services
15
19 20 21
㪈㪋
and dairy products
㪪㫃㪸㫌㪾㪿㫋㪼㫉㫀㫅㪾㪃㩷㫄㪼㪸㫋㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪻㪸㫀㫉㫐㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
Other food products
㪊㪌
㪈㪎
Spinning
㪈㪏
Weaving and dyeing
40
Knitting
41
Wearing apparel
42
㪈㪐
㪫㫆㪹㪸㪺㪺㫆
㪪㫇㫀㫅㫅㫀㫅㪾
㪮㪼㪸㫍㫀㫅㪾㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪻㫐㪼㫀㫅㪾
㪊㪏
㪊㪐 㪋㪇
㪧㫃㪸㫊㫋㫀㪺㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
㪚㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪺㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊
Iron and steel 㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫅㫆㫅㪄㫄㪼㫋㪸㫃㫃㫀㪺㩷㫄㫀㫅㪼㫉㪸㫃㩷㫇㫉㫆㪻㫌㪺㫋㫊 Non-ferrous metal
㪌㪍
㪍㪈
63
㪉㪇
㪢㫅㫀㫋㫋㫀㫅㪾
㪋㪈
㪠㫉㫆㫅㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫊㫋㪼㪼㫃
㪍㪉
㪉㪈
㪮㪼㪸㫉㫀㫅㪾㩷㪸㫇㫇㪸㫉㪼㫃
㪋㪉
㪥㫆㫅㪄㪽㪼㫉㫉㫆㫌㫊㩷㫄㪼㫋㪸㫃
㪍㪊
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㪺㫆㫅㫊㫋㫉㫌㪺㫋㫀㫆㫅
㪫㪼㫃㪼㫇㪿㫆㫅㪼㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫋㪼㫃㪼㪺㫆㫄㫄㫌㫅㫀㪺㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅
㪝㫀㫅㪸㫅㪺㪼㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫀㫅㫊㫌㫉㪸㫅㪺㪼
㪜㪻㫌㪺㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫉㪼㫊㪼㪸㫉㪺㪿 Public administration and 8QFODVVL¿HG 㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫊㪼㫉㫍㫀㪺㪼㫊
㪧㫌㪹㫃㫀㪺㩷㪸㪻㫄㫀㫅㫀㫊㫋㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㪬㫅㪺㫃㪸㫊㫊㫀㪽㫀㪼㪻
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
Appendix 2 Details of integrated sectors Ditails of integrated sectors 㪛㫀㫋㪸㫀㫃㫊㩷㫆㪽㩷㫀㫅㫋㪼㪾㫉㪸㫋㪼㪻㩷㫊㪼㪺㫋㫆㫉㫊 6HFWRU&ODVVL¿FDWLRQ
76 Sector Classification Code Description(2000) Code General Description 045 machinery
045 Metal General machinery working
046
ma-
chinery
046 Specialaized Metal working machinery machin-
047
6HFWRU&ODVVL¿FDWLRQ
Classification Code63 SectorDescription Code 045
Description Ordinary and specialized machinery
045 Ordinary and specialized machinery
ery
047 Specialaized machinery 049
049 050 051
051
052
Semiconductors and integrated circuits Semiconductors and integrated circuits
047
Electronics and electronic products
047 Electronics and electronic products
054
054
058 061
Other transport equipOther transport equipment ment
Sugar cane and beet
004 SugarOil cane and beet parm 005
and coco-
nuts
003 Food crops
003 Food crops
Other Food crops
003
Natural rubber
003 Natural rubber 006 009
048
Other electric maOther electric machinery and appliance chinery and appliance
050
Other transport equipment
048
056 cycles 056 Motor Motor cycles 058
Description
Fiber crops
004 Non-food crops
004 Non-food crops
Other commercial
009 Othercrops commercial crops
Household electrical /LJKWLQJ¿[WXUHVEDWWHULightingwiring fixtures, batteries, wiring and others ies, and others
004
006 Fiber crops
Other electronics and
053 equipment Household electrical equipment
Code
002 Cassava
008
products Other electronics and electronic products 052 electronic
053
Code002 Cassava Description
008 Other Food crops
Television sets, radios,audios and communication equipment
050 Electronic computing equipment
6HFWRU&ODVVL¿FDWLRQ
63 Sector Classification Code Description
005 Oil parm and coconuts
Television sets, radios,audios and communication equipment Electronic computing equipment
6HFWRU&ODVVL¿FDWLRQ
78 Code Sector Classification (1990.1995) Description
050 Other transport equipment
Electricity and gas 054
061 Water Electricitysupply and gas 062
Electricity, gas and water supply
014
Copper ore
014 Copper ore
015015Tin oreTin ore
Otheroremetallic ore 010 010 Other metallic
ore 017017OtherOther metallic metallic ore Other milled grain
021021OtherDQGÀRXU milled grain and flour
0LOOHGJUDLQDQGÀRXU 012 012 Milled grain and flour
020020MilledMilled Rice Rice 019019Oil andOilfatsand fats
054 Electricity, gas and water supply 062 Real Water supply 069 estate 069 Medical Real estate
071
Restraunts
072 Restraunts
073
Hotel
062
Other services
062 Other services
073 Hotel 074
Other services
8QFODVVL¿HG
076 Unclassified
053
ery and equipment
and specializedand machinery 054 Specialized industrial machinery Specialized industrial045 OrdinaryOrdinary special054
045
machinery
ized machinery
055
machinery
061 Motor cycles and bicycles
Public administration
075 Public administration 076
machinery and equipment 053 Agricultural Agricultural machin-
055 Ordinary industrial machinery Ordinary industrial
074 Other services 075
015 015 Other food products Other food products
025025OtherOther food products food products
and health
service
071 Medical and health service
072
022022SugarSugar
063
Public administration DQG8QFODVVL¿HG
063 Public administration and Unclassified
061
Motor cycles and bicycles
062 Aircrafts 062
050 Other transport equipment
Aircrafts
050
064 Other transport equipment 064
Other transport equipment
077
Public administration063
Other transport equipment
077 Public administration 078 Unclassified 078
8QFODVVL¿HG
Public administration and Unclassified 063
Public administration DQG8QFODVVL¿HG
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
Appendix 3 Dependency structure based on final demand from 1990 to 2000 'HSHQGHQFH6WUXFWXUHEDVHGRQ)LQDO'HPDQG 䇭㪛㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㪼㫅㪺㪼㩷㪪㫋㫉㫌㪺㫋㫌㫉㪼㩷㪹㪸㫊㪼㪻㩷㫆㫅㩷㪝㫀㫅㪸㫃㩷㪛㪼㫄㪸㫅㪻㩷㩿㪈㪐㪐㪇㪄㪉㪇㪇㪇㪀
㪈㪐㪐㪇
㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸 Malaysia 㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸 Philippines 㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊 Thailand 㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻
China 㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
Korea 㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
Japan 㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪇㪅㪏㩼
㪎㪅㪋㩼
㪈㪅㪍㩼
㪈㪅㪊㩼
㪈㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪎㪊㪅㪎㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
China
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
Korea
Japan
㩷㩷㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 1995 㪈㪐㪐㪌
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Indonesia
Malaysia
㩷㩷㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸
㩷㩷㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸 Philippines
㩷㩷㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊 Thailand
㩷㩷㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻 China
㩷㩷㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸 Korea 㩷㩷㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸 Japan
1990
Indonesia
Indonesia
㩷㩷㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
㩷㩷㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸 㩷㩷㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊 㩷㩷㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻 㩷㩷㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㩷㩷㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
2000 㩷㩷㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅 㪉㪇㪇㪇 Indonesia
㪎㪏㪅㪏㩼 㪇㪅㪌㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸 㪏㪇㪅㪌㩼 㪇㪅㪍㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪋㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪎㪐㪅㪌㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼 㪇㪅㪇㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼 㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼 㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸 㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊 㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻 㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪋㩼 㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼 㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪎㪋㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼 Indonesia
㪇㪅㪉㩼 㪈㪅㪌㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪏㪉㪅㪍㩼 㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪎㪅㪎㩼
㪊㪅㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪊㩼
㪉㪅㪎㩼
㪎㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪏㪎㪅㪎㩼
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪏㩼
㪋㪅㪉㩼
㪈㪅㪏㩼
㪈㪅㪋㩼
㪍㪅㪏㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪉㪅㪐㩼
China
Korea
Japan
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪍㪎㪅㪐㩼
㪇㪅㪎㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪋㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪎㪐㪅㪋㩼
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪊㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪈㪅㪊㩼
㪎㪌㪅㪊㩼
㪉㪅㪎㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼 Malaysia
㪇㪅㪈㩼 Philippines
㪇㪅㪋㩼 Thailand
㪇㪅㪌㩼 China
㪇㪅㪌㩼 Korea
㪏㪐㪅㪊㩼 Japan
㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊 㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻
㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸 㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸 㪍㪍㪅㪏㩼
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪈㪅㪍㩼
㪈㪅㪊㩼
㪍㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪊㪋㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪇㪅㪐㩼
㪉㪅㪏㩼
㪈㪅㪋㩼
㪏㪅㪇㩼
Thailand 㩷㩷㪧㪿㫀㫃㫀㫇㫇㫀㫅㪼㫊
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪍㪊㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪈㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪍㩼
㪋㪅㪊㩼
China 㩷㩷㪫㪿㪸㫀㫃㪸㫅㪻
㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪇㪅㪎㩼
㪇㪅㪊㩼
㪌㪎㪅㪋㩼
㪈㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪌㪅㪈㩼
Korea 㩷㩷㪚㪿㫀㫅㪸
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪎㪏㪅㪊㩼
㪇㪅㪌㩼
㪊㪅㪊㩼
Japan 㩷㩷㪢㫆㫉㪼㪸
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪉㪅㪌㩼
㪍㪐㪅㪊㩼
㪉㪅㪍㩼
㩷㩷㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪈㩼
㪇㪅㪉㩼
㪇㪅㪎㩼
㪇㪅㪋㩼
㪏㪎㪅㪈㩼
Malaysia 㩷㩷㪠㫅㪻㫆㫅㪼㫊㫀㪸 Philippines 㩷㩷㪤㪸㫃㪸㫐㫊㫀㪸
Far Eastern Studies Vol.7
References Aoki, K. (2005), “The changing of the growth in triangle in Asia-Pacific region” Nihon Hyoronsha (in Japanese) Eguchi, S. (2006), “Globalization and reorganization of the northeast Asian region order” A general policy selection of treatises Vol.11 The University of Shimane (in Japanese). Fujikawa, K. Shimoda, M. and Watanabe, T. (2006), “The change of the international division of labor structure of the Asia and the Pacific Area” Economic Management Vol.42 Osaka Sangyo University (in Japanese). Fujikawa, T. and Watanabe, T. (2003), “The Economic effect of FTA of China, Korea and Japan” Business journal of PAPAIOS, Vol.11 No.1 (in Japanese). Fujita, W. (2006),”An extending on virtical specialization share using International Input-Output Tables” Journal of Management and Economy, Vol.85, No.3.4, (in Japanese) Hasebe, Y. (2002), “Trade and Economic Growth in Eastern Asia: An Analysis for Economic interdependency Using 1985-90-95 Asian International Input-Output Tables,” Yokohama Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 3, (in Japanese). Hasebe, Y. and Shrestha, N. (2006), “Economic Integration in East Asia㧦An International Input-Output Analysis” The World Economy Vol.29, Issue 12 Honda, K. (2006) “A study about the international division of labor and industrial accumulation in East Asia” Bulletin of the Research Institute of Economic science Vol.36 Research Institute of Economic Science College of Economics Nihon University (in Japanese). Kimura, F. Maruya, H. and Ishikawa, K. (2002) “The international division of labor in East Asia and China” JETRO (in Japanese). Meng, B. Sato, H. Nakamura, J. Okamoto, N. Kuwamori, H. and Inomata, S. (2006), “Interindustrial Structure in the Asia-Pacific Region㧦Growth and Integration, by Using 2000 AIO Table” DISCUSSION PAPER No.50, INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPING ECONOMIES NIRA (2003), “The feasible economic effect of Free Trade Area of China, Korea and Japan” NIRA policy study Vol.16, No.12 (in Japanese). Okamoto, N, Inomata, T. and others (2006),”International Input-Output Theory: Input-Output Analysis on East Asia V” Asian International Input-Output Analysis Series No.66, (in Japanese). Shimizu, K. (2004). “For regional economy cooperation of Asean, China, Korea and Japan” Korea economic study Vol.4 Kyushu University (in Japanese). Takagawa, I. and Okada, T. (2004), “Estimation of Input Coefficient of Extended International IO table and Analysis of Interdependency in Asia-Pacific Economy,” Bank of
Changes of dependency structure in East Asia from 1990 to 2000
Japan Working Paper Series No. 04-J-6, (in Japanese). Tamamura, S. Uchida, Y. and Okamoto, N. (2003) “Production, demand structure and the trade liberalization of Asian countries” Journal of Asian Economies XLIV-56 (in Japanese). Kim, X. (2006) “The relations among China, Korea and Japan and Northeastern Asian regional cooperation” A general policy selection of treatises Vol.11 The University of Shimane (in Japanese). Data Source for the Asian IIO tables Institute of Developing Economies (1998), “Asian International Input-Output Table 1990,” IDE Statistical Data Series, No. 81 Institute of Developing Economies (2001), “Asian International Input-Output Table 1995,” IDE Statistical Data Series No. 82 Institute of Developing Economies (2006), “Asian International Input-Output Table 2000,” IDE Statistical Data Series No. 90 Received 3 October 2007; accepted 14 April 2008
