| 摘要 | ABSTRACT
1. Background and Purpose of Research
In real terms, international oil prices rose 2.2 times between 2004 and 2008, which compares with the 3.2-fold rise during the first oil shock in 1973 and 1974 and the 2-fold rise during the second oil shock in 1978 to 1980.
The Korean economy weathered the first oil shock well because of heavy Korean involvement in the construction boom that was then going on in the Middle East. The Korean economy did not fare nearly as well during the second oil shock and actually contracted 1.9% in 1980. Thankfully, the economy was not strongly impacted by the huge rise in international crude oil prices that began in 2000. Korea's average economic growth rate in the first decade of the 21st century was 4.6%, somewhat lower than in the past. The average inflation rate was only 3.1%.
The purpose of this research is to ask and to discover answers to the following four questions: First, do international oil prices have less impact on the Korean economy than in the past when considering only real economic aspects? Second, was government policy designed to reduce oil dependency effective and, by extension, did it provide the Korean economy some protection against an oil price shock? Third, considering the ongoing decline in oil dependency and the increasing importance of coal and natural gas, how much does a price change in these energy sources affect the economy? In other words, do changes in oil prices have greater effect compared to changes in prices of other energy sources? Lastly, is there a need to maintain policies that are designed to reduce oil dependency?
This research analyzes the economic impact of an oil price shock with respect to varying degrees of oil dependency. It analyzes the economic effects of the oil price shock in 1980, when oil dependency was the highest, and in 2005, when oil dependency was substantially lower, to evaluate government policies on reducing oil dependency, which were of high priority, and to identify policy implications that should be considered when formulating and enforcing relevant policies. Against the backdrop of the high oil prices in recent years, this research analyzes the effects of a decrease in oil dependency on the macroeconomy and evaluates the outcome of policies on reducing oil dependency.
2. Key Details
First, do international oil prices have less impact on the Korean economy compared to the past when considering only real economic aspects? The effects on consumer welfare were assessed in different scenarios. In scenario 1, consumer welfare drops 1.4%p in 1980 but decreases only 0.7%p in 2005. In scenario 2, consumer welfare decreases 1.5%p in 1980 and 1.0%p in 2005. This indicates that the magnitude of the decrease was only about two-thirds as great as it was in 1980. A rise in international crude oil prices reduces the purchasing power of Korean consumers, thus triggering a drop in consumption.
An assessment was conducted on the impact that a rise in international crude oil prices has on GDP for each scenario. In scenario 1, GDP falls 1.4%p in 1980 but drops only 0.8%p in 2005. In scenario 2, GDP decreases 1.4%p in 1980 and 1.0%p in 2005. Here, too, the decrease was only about two-thirds as great as in 1980. A comparison between scenario 1 (or 3) and scenario 2 (or 4) indicates that there is a difference in the changes in GDP loss between different periods. This is because oil accounted for lower percentages of energy consumption and import value in 2005 in comparison to 1980, and the corresponding percentages accounted for by gas and coal went up.
These results indicate that, in the model (CGE model) that considers only real economy aspects, there was less negative impact on the Korean economy by international oil prices in 2005, when oil dependency was low, compared to 1980, when oil dependency was high.
Second, was government policy designed to reduce oil dependency effective, and did it afford the Korean economy some protection against an oil price shock? One of the outcomes has been fuel switching. The cement industry switched from oil to bituminous coal. In the mid-1980s, Pyeongtaek switched to natural gas. The electric power industry built more nuclear power generation facilities. Accordingly, the percentage of all energy consumption taken up by oil dropped considerably by 2005, as did its share of import value, in comparison to 1980. The percentage shares of gas and coal in energy consumption and import value rose. As a result, international oil prices have a less negative impact on the Korean economy.
Third, considering the ongoing decline in oil dependency and the increasing importance of coal and natural gas, how much does a price change in these energy sources affect the economy? In other words, do changes in oil prices have greater effect compared to changes in prices of other energy sources? If the international price of coal in 2005 is doubled, consumer welfare and GDP drop 0.8% and 0.5%, respectively. Doubling the 2005 price of natural gas causes consumer welfare and GDP to fall 1.6% and 1.3%, respectively. A doubling of the 2005 price of crude oil and petroleum products leads to greater declines in consumer welfare and GDP of 6.0% and 6.8%, respectively. Coal's share of total energy consumption in 2005 was 23.6%, which was higher than that of natural gas at 13.0%, but the economic impact of a rise in the coal price was lower. Even when only considering oil's share of energy consumption at 44.0%, the economic impact of a rise in oil prices was greater compared to other energy sources.
An examination was conducted on the cost aspects of each energy source. An assessment on the percentage of the total import value accounted for by each energy source in 2005 indicates that it was 71.9% for oil, 10.6% for coal, and 16.9% for natural gas. The ratio of the natural gas import value against the oil import value is 23.4%; and the ratio of the coal import value against the oil import value is 14.8%. A comparison was made among the degrees of consumer welfare loss caused by a price increase of each energy source. Natural gas compared to oil is 26.7%, and coal compared to oil is 13.3%. A comparison was also made among the degrees of GDP loss caused by a price increase of each energy source. Natural gas compared to oil is 19.1%, and coal compared to oil is 7.4%. The ratio of natural gas import value against oil import value was roughly the same as the ratio of consumer welfare and GDP loss. However, there was a significant gap with the ratio of the coal import value against the oil import value. A change in the international prices of either oil or natural gas, therefore, has roughly the same impact on the Korean economy. A rise in coal prices has relatively little impact.
Oil and natural gas have an impact that is as much as the proportion of total costs of each energy source. The impact of a change in coal prices is lower than that of oil or natural gas. The economic impact of an increase in oil prices is the greatest, considering that oil prices (in mmBTU) are higher than natural gas prices.
Lastly, is there a need to continually implement energy policies that are designed to reduce oil dependency? This is a high priority for the government. As examined above, a rise in oil prices has greater impact on the Korean economy in comparison to other energy sources. Policies that reduce oil dependency will lessen the macroeconomic impact of a rise in international oil prices.
3. Policy Recommendation
The policy implications that were identified through this research are as follows:
First, there is a need to continually implement energy policies that aim to reduce oil dependency. Energy policies designed to reduce oil dependency should in effect reduce the macroeconomic impact of a rise in international oil prices. Bituminous coal, nuclear energy, and LNG are used for power generation in order to satisfy the quickly rising demand for electricity, and this has substantially cushioned Korea against economic shocks caused by high oil prices. Natural gas prices should be held in check as a result of the ongoing development of shale gas in North America. The prices of shale gas and natural gas in mmBTU are low, so increasing their shares of consumption should reduce the negative effects of volatility in the international energy market.
Second, there is a need for energy policies that promote an efficient energy consumption structure. Realizing a more efficient energy consumption structure by reducing energy intensity could also reduce the negative impact of volatility in the international energy market. Despite the high oil prices, Korea's energy intensity rose from 2008 to 2011. Even if oil dependency goes down, there is synchronicity in the prices of energy sources, and this is why a rise in international oil prices has a greater negative impact on an economy with an inefficient energy consumption structure compared to an economy with an efficient energy consumption structure.
Third, there is a need for energy policies that would enhance energy independence. As indicated by the simulations, a rise in international energy prices has substantially greater negative effects on Korea, which imports 96% of its energy, than the US, which can satisfy much of its energy demand domestically. Reducing import dependence and increasing energy independence would mean less impact from volatility in the international energy market.
This research studied the influence that an increase in international oil prices has on the Korean economy based on oil dependency and over different periods. In other words, this research focused on how an oil price shock affects the economy depending on the degree of oil dependency. Model simulations indicate that international oil prices have less negative impact on the Korean economy during a period when oil dependency is low (2005) compared to a period when oil dependency is high (1980). A major priority in policy in Korea is to reduce oil dependency. These policies reduce the macroeconomic impact on Korea of energy price changes against the backdrop of high oil prices, and they should remain high priority.
Improving energy intensity (in other words, energy efficiency) is as important as reducing oil dependency. Shifting the focus of policy from supply to demand would improve energy consumption efficiency and reduce the impact of volatility in the international energy market, in turn contributing to the development of the national economy. |
