The macroeconomic effects of structural oil price shocks: An international GVAR analysis

Chon, Sora Article The macroeconomic effects of structural oil price shocks: An international GVAR analysis KDI Journal of Economic Policy Provided in Cooperation with: Korea Development Institute (KDI), Sejong Suggested Citation: Chon, Sora (2025) : The macroeconomic effects of structural oil price shocks: An international GVAR analysis, KDI Journal of Economic Policy, ISSN 2586-4130, Korea Development Institute (KDI), Sejong, Vol. 47, Iss. 3, pp. 69-88, https://doi.org/10.23895/kdijep.2025.47.3.69 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330703 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ KDI Journal of Economic Policy 2025, 47(3):69-88 https://dx.doi.org/10.23895/kdijep.2025.47.3.69 69 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis † By S ORA C HON * This paper investigates the macroeconomic impacts of structural oil price shocks by employing a Global Vector Autoregression (GVAR) framework, utilizing the structural shocks as identified by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019). Our analysis differentiates among three types of oil shocks: economic activity shocks caused by fluctuations in global demand, oil supply shocks driven by production disruptions, and oil inventory demand shocks linked to shifts in market expectations about future supply-demand imbalances. Empirical findings indicate that the macroeconomic consequences of these shocks differ depending on their underlying sources and related structural characteristics. In oil-importing countries such as Korea and China, oil supply disruptions and inventory-related shocks generally exert negative short-term effects on economic activity due to increased import costs and uncertainty-driven price volatility. Conversely, oil-exporting countries such as Canada and the United States respond differently, benefiting from increased export opportunities associated with higher oil prices. Overall, the study emphasizes the critical importance of distinguishing the structural causes of oil price fluctuations, highlighting how the indirect transmission of these shocks through international economic linkages significantly influences domestic macroeconomic performance outcomes. The results provide important implications for policymakers, underscoring the necessity of tailored policy responses to mitigate macroeconomic risks arising from energy transitions and geopolitical uncertainties. Key words: Energy and commodity market, Global VAR (GVAR), Structural Oil Shock, Macroeconomic impact JEL Code: Q41, Q43, E32  * Assistant Professor of Economics, Inha University (E-mail: so[email protected]) * Received: 2025. 2. 26 * Referee Process Started: 2025. 2. 27 * Referee Reports Completed: 2025. 7. 31 † I sincerely thank the two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. Any remaining errors are my own responsibility. 70 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 I. Introduction nderstanding the macroeconomic impacts of oil price fluctuations has long been an important research topic, given the central role of oil as a global energy source. Interest in this area has intensified recently due to heightened volatility and disruptions in global energy markets following the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing geopolitical tensions, and shifts in international climate policies. Rising energy prices and global commitments toward carbon neutrality have further increased the relevance of oil price changes in relation to economic growth, inflation, employment, and overall financial stability. Previous studies, notably Kilian (2009), have clearly demonstrated a strong link between oil prices and macroeconomic performance, highlighting significant implications across diverse economic contexts. Countries that are heavily reliant on imported energy resources, such as Korea, often described as an energy island, are especially vulnerable to global oil price fluctuations. In such economies, oil price volatility directly affects inflation, industrial production, employment, consumption, and financial stability, intensifying their sensitivity to certain developments in the international energy market. Historically, economic analyses often treated oil price fluctuations as external, exogenous shocks. While this approach clarified short-term economic effects, it largely overlooked the underlying structural factors driving such price changes. This type of simplification could lead to incomplete interpretations and potentially ineffective policy recommendations, especially during periods of heightened uncertainty or complex global interactions. More recent studies, particularly Baumeister and Hamilton (2019), emphasize the importance of explicitly identifying the structural factors behind oil price fluctuations. They distinguish clearly among economic activity (demand) shocks, oil supply shocks, and inventory shocks driven by market expectations. Inventory shocks, which involve market participants adjusting current inventories based on expected future supply-demand imbalances, significantly influence short-term price volatility. Clearly identifying these structural shocks enables policymakers to more accurately understand the economic implications of oil price movements, resulting in more effective policy responses. Additionally, contemporary climate policies and carbon neutrality initiatives introduce further complexity into global oil markets. As countries transition toward low-carbon energy systems, expectations about future fossil fuel demand change substantially. Such expectations can influence current oil prices through inventory adjustments and investment decisions, underscoring the need for more structural analysis. Building on the frameworks established by Kilian (2009) and Baumeister and Hamilton (2019), this study contributes to the existing literature by examining structural oil price shocks within an open economy context. While prior research extensively explored domestic impacts, it has rarely conducted detailed comparative analyses across both oil-importing and oil-exporting countries. To address this gap, we apply a global vector autoregression (GVAR) model, integrating international economic interdependence explicitly. We then analyze macroeconomic responses to U VOL. 47 NO. 3 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis 71 distinct structural oil shocks across selected major economies—Korea, China, Canada, and the United States. Our empirical results indicate that macroeconomic responses differ significantly depending on the type of structural shock considered. Oil-importing economies such as Korea and China face adverse short-term effects from oil supply disruptions and inventory shocks due to increased import costs and market uncertainty. Conversely, oil-exporting economies such as Canada and the United States can benefit substantially from supply-driven oil price increases, as higher prices incentivize increased domestic production and exports (Cashin et al., 2014; Kilian, 2009. These differences underscore the limitations of treating oil shocks merely as short-term input-cost fluctuations and reinforce the importance of identifying their structural origins. Overall, our study provides important insights for policymakers. A clear understanding of structural shocks is essential for effective macroeconomic management. Tailored policy measures that reflect the distinct characteristics of each type of shock can help mitigate economic risks, enhance resilience. Moreover, they respond effectively to ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, energy market volatility, and evolving climate policies. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 thoroughly reviews relevant prior research, highlighting key findings, methodological advances, and identifying existing gaps. Section 3 details our empirical model and methodological approach, explicitly outlining the GVAR framework and the structural shocks identification strategy employed. Section 4 presents comprehensive empirical results, analyzing country-specific responses to distinct structural oil shocks. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the study’s main findings, discusses significant policy implications, and offers suggestions for future research to deepen our understanding of oil price dynamics and their macroeconomic effects.   II. Literature Review  This section expands on the earlier discussions by reviewing previous studies of structural oil price shocks and their macroeconomic effects. Oil prices have been widely recognized as a crucial economic factor due to their significant influence on inflation, economic growth, employment, and overall financial stability. Owing to their broad impact, extensive research has aimed to clarify how oil price fluctuations affect economic performance and to identify precisely which underlying factors drive these changes. Early studies, beginning notably with Hamilton (1983), generally treated oil price fluctuations as exogenous shocks, focusing primarily on short-term economic outcomes. Hamilton’s foundational research demonstrated that sudden increases in oil prices negatively impacted major economies, resulting in lower economic growth, increased inflation, and higher unemployment rates. These early studies typically focused on direct, immediate effects and did not deeply investigate the structural factors underlying oil price fluctuations. A significant methodological advance was introduced by Kilian (2009), who argued that interpreting oil price changes as purely external shocks could cause analytical biases, especially reverse causality, potentially leading to incorrect policy 72 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 recommendations. Kilian developed a structural vector autoregression (SVAR) model that explicitly identified different structural oil price shocks, in this case oil supply shocks, economic activity (global demand) shocks, and precautionary demand shocks, known as “oil-specific shocks.” Oil supply shocks typically emerge from production disruptions due to geopolitical events, natural disasters, or deliberate output cuts by major oil producers. Economic activity shocks reflect broader global demand fluctuations driven by worldwide economic expansions or downturns. Precautionary demand shocks, in contrast, capture market uncertainty and expectations about future oil supplies, motivating market participants to adjust their inventories in anticipation of possible shortages. Building upon Kilian’s (2009) structural framework, Baumeister and Hamilton (2019) emphasized the importance of explicitly identifying inventory-related shocks driven by market expectations and uncertainty. While earlier studies typically grouped inventory-driven fluctuations under broader demand shocks, Baumeister and Hamilton argued that inventory shocks independently influence oil price dynamics and macroeconomic outcomes. They distinguished clearly between two distinct types of inventory shocks: precautionary inventory shocks, reflecting genuine market uncertainty regarding future oil supply disruptions, and speculative inventory shocks, driven by investor expectations about future price increases not necessarily aligned with market fundamentals. An important methodological contribution of Baumeister and Hamilton (2019) is their application of Bayesian econometric techniques to address identification uncertainty explicitly. Using Bayesian inference allowed them to quantify the uncertainty surrounding structural shock identification by imposing informative priors, thereby enabling more robust estimations and interpretations of the economic impacts of oil price fluctuations. This Bayesian approach provided a statistically rigorous foundation for distinguishing among competing structural hypotheses and underscored the significance of clearly identifying each type of shock to evaluate macroeconomic effects accurately and formulate appropriate policy responses. Cashin et al. (2014) similarly investigated structural oil price shocks, distinguishing primarily between supply-driven and demand-driven shocks. Unlike Baumeister and Hamilton (2019), however, their approach did not explicitly separate inventoryrelated shocks into precautionary and speculative categories. Consequently, the analysis in Cashin et al. (2014) did not fully capture the distinct macroeconomic implications associated with these different inventory-driven shocks, representing a key methodological difference from the approach adopted by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019) and subsequently employed in our current study. Nonetheless, Cashin et al. (2014) highlighted that oil-importing economies tend to experience adverse economic effects following supply-driven price increases, aligning broadly with the findings of Baumeister and Hamilton (2019) and reinforcing the importance of explicitly differentiating among structural shocks to assess macroeconomic outcomes more accurately. Cross et al. (2020) provided additional clarity regarding this distinction, emphasizing the different economic signals precautionary and speculative shocks generate. While precautionary shocks usually encourage producers to maintain stable production and inventory levels to manage potential disruptions, speculative shocks can send distorted signals, causing producers to delay production or investors to accumulate excessive inventories. These distinctions matter considerably because the macroeconomic effects VOL. 47 NO. 3 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis 73 of precautionary versus speculative shocks differ substantially, impacting economic stability and informing different policy recommendations. These explicit structural distinctions help explain why seemingly similar oil price increases may result in different macroeconomic outcomes depending on the underlying shock. For example, demand-driven oil price increases during global economic expansions tend to stimulate industrial production, increase exports, and boost economic activity, although they also raise inflation pressures due to higher input costs. In contrast, supply-driven price hikes caused by geopolitical disruptions typically produce negative economic impacts, particularly for importing economies, by directly raising production costs and reducing consumers’ purchasing power, consequently slowing economic growth. Several studies have specifically analyzed oil price shocks in the context of open economies, emphasizing how international economic connections shape domestic outcomes. Kilian et al. (2009) and Peersman and Van Robays (2012) investigated the international spillover effects of oil price shocks, demonstrating how global trade and financial linkages influence different countries’ economic responses. They showed that global interdependencies can significantly amplify or mitigate the macroeconomic effects of oil price fluctuations, highlighting the necessity of analyzing oil price shocks within an open economy framework. Specifically, several studies have focused on Korea due to its high dependence on imported energy. An et al. (2017) applied Kilian’s structural framework to assess how distinct oil price shocks influence Korea’s exports, imports, and current account balance differently. Their findings demonstrated that structural shocks—supply disruptions, economic activity changes, or precautionary shocks—resulted in distinct macroeconomic responses, depending on the type of shock. Chon and Jung (2021) reinforced these findings by incorporating Korea’s GDP growth and inflation, showing clearly differentiated economic impacts between demand-driven and precautionary shocks. They found that demand-driven oil shocks generally increased economic growth, whereas precautionary shocks primarily raised inflation without significantly benefiting economic performance. However, traditional single-country SVAR analyses, despite treating oil price shocks as exogenous variables, face limitations in clearly distinguishing domestic effects from indirect global spillover effects, particularly for small open economies such as Korea. To address this methodological gap, Jeong (2014) adopted a global VAR (GVAR) framework that explicitly incorporates international economic linkages while still treating oil price shocks as exogenous. Jeong’s analysis clearly demonstrated that indirect international spillover effects significantly influenced Korea’s macroeconomic outcomes. Similarly, studies by Kim and Park (2009) and Shin et al. (2013) employed GVAR models to analyze the spillover phenomenon in small open economies, highlighting the importance of capturing global economic interactions to improve the accuracy of macroeconomic analyses. Despite these advances, existing studies based on GVAR models generally did not explicitly incorporate structural shock identification, limiting their explanatory power. Recognizing this gap, the current study integrates the explicit structural shocks methodology proposed by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019) into a comprehensive global analytical framework. Specifically, we apply their structural shock classification approach within a GVAR model, comparing macroeconomic responses across selected oil-importing countries (Korea and China) and major oil-exporting economies 74 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 (Canada and the United States). By explicitly combining global economic modeling with this type of structural shock analysis, our study provides clearer insights into how different structural oil shocks distinctly affect economic outcomes, contributing to the existing literature and informing policy discussions. In the next section, we describe our empirical methodology in detail. We explicitly present the GVAR modeling framework and the structural shock classification method adopted from Baumeister and Hamilton (2019). This clear and integrated approach allows us to better identify macroeconomic impacts associated with distinct structural shocks, addressing existing research gaps and offering practical guidance to policymakers.   III. Empirical Model and Methodology  To analyze systematically how structural oil price shocks propagate through the global economy and influence macroeconomic outcomes, we adopt an integrated methodological approach combining the global vector autoregression (GVAR) model developed by Chudik and Pesaran (2015) and the structural shocks identification framework proposed by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019). This combined approach addresses certain key limitations of previous empirical analyses by explicitly considering structural shocks within an open economy framework. The methodological rigor here is particularly critical for accurately capturing the direct and indirect international transmission channels through which global oil shocks influence domestic economies. The GVAR model was selected due to its proven capability in capturing international economic interdependencies and spillover effects, which is especially suitable for analyzing small open economies such as Korea. By explicitly incorporating foreign macroeconomic variables constructed as weighted averages based on bilateral trade flows, the GVAR framework provides a comprehensive tool for tracing how global shocks diffuse across interconnected economies, offering precise quantification of both direct and indirect macroeconomic impacts.  A. Global VAR (GVAR) Framework  The GVAR model, developed by Chudik and Pesaran (2015), captures the global interdependencies and dynamic relationships among international macroeconomic variables, making it especially suitable for analyzing the transmission of external shocks in small open economies such as Korea. Each country-specific VAR within the GVAR model includes both domestic and foreign variables, with foreign variables represented as trade-weighted averages of corresponding variables from other countries. Formally, the country-specific GVAR model for country i at time t can be expressed as in Equation [1] using a VARX* () ii ss  model, as presented in Equation [2].  [Equation 1]     01 ,,, i i it i i i i it i i t it Ls x a at Ls x A Ls u Z Z  ) *   Here, the error term it u is assumed to have no cross-correlation or autocorrelation. The external variables it x for each country are constructed by taking the trade- VOL. 47 NO. 3 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis 75 weighted cross-section average of other countries’ domestic variables, ,,,,, jijj N tt xxjN Z  } 1 Σ12  and the weights sum to 1. Common global variables, such as structural oil shocks and oil prices, can be treated as exogenous in the model.  B. Data Description and Variable Selection  Our empirical analysis utilizes the Global VAR (GVAR) dataset introduced by Mohaddes and Raissi (2020), which covers 33 major economies collectively accounting for over 90% of global GDP. The dataset has been extended in this study to include the period from the second quarter of 1979 through the first quarter of 2020. The data include key macroeconomic variables necessary to analyze international economic interactions and spillover effects. For each economy, this study constructs country-specific vector autoregression (VAR) models, capturing both domestic economic conditions and international linkages. The models incorporate real gross domestic product (GDP) data and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), obtained from seasonally adjusted IMF International Financial Statistics (IFS) and Haver Analytics. To reflect financial market conditions and monetary policy environments, short-term and long-term interest rates derived from Haver Analytics and the IMF IFS are included, specifically covering treasury bill rates, deposit rates, discount rates, and money market rates appropriate to each country’s financial market structure. Additionally, exchange rates—calculated as quarterly averages of bilateral nominal exchange rates against the US dollar—are incorporated. All variables are consistently constructed across economies according to the standard GVAR framework, including logarithmic transformations. To identify structural shocks, this study employs an updated version of the dataset used in Baumeister and Hamilton (2019). Oil supply shocks are identified using Brent crude oil prices sourced from Bloomberg, calculated as quarterly averages of daily closing prices. Aggregate demand shocks (economic activity shocks) are identified using the global economic activity index from the OECD Main Economic Indicators (MEI) database, which aggregates industrial production indices of OECD countries and six major non-member countries (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and South Africa) using weights provided by the IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO). Inventory-driven demand shocks are identified using quarterly global oil inventory data calculated from OECD crude oil inventory statistics, which are derived from U.S. crude oil inventory data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), reflecting changes in market participants’ expectations about future supply-demand imbalances. Figure 1 illustrates quarterly averages of the identified structural shocks— economic activity shocks, oil supply shocks, and inventory shocks—over the period of 1979 to 2020. Economic activity shocks generally track major global economic cycles, while oil supply shocks are less volatile and correspond to recognized historical geopolitical or production events. Inventory demand shocks exhibit relatively frequent short-term volatility, reflecting market-driven expectations and 76 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 FIGURE 1. DOMESTIC GDP RESPONSES TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SHOCKS Note: The figure displays quarterly averages of the economic activity, oil supply, and oil inventory demand shocks as identified by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019).  uncertainties. However, caution is required when interpreting these shocks directly, as their identification relies on specific modeling assumptions and the data sources used. By explicitly distinguishing these three structural shocks, our analysis provides clearer insights into how different factors driving oil price fluctuations affect key economic indicators. Our estimation procedure within the GVAR framework relies primarily on generalized impulse response functions (GIRFs). GIRFs allow us to trace the dynamic effects of each structural oil price shock on economic variables such as the real GDP and consumer prices, explicitly accounting for global economic linkages. Using GIRFs, this paper demonstrates how distinct structural shocks propagate across interconnected global economies over time. By combining the robustness of the GVAR modeling approach with the clear structural shock classification proposed by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019), our analysis delivers detailed insights. This methodology improves our understanding of how specific structural oil shocks differently influence oil-importing and oilexporting economies, thus offering valuable guidance for policymakers facing complex global energy market dynamics. In the following section, we present detailed empirical results derived from this methodological framework, highlighting country-specific responses to each type of structural oil shock.   IV. Empirical Investigation  A. Weak Exogeneity Tests for Global Variables in the GVAR Model  Before analyzing the transmission of structural oil price shocks through impulse response functions, first we assess the validity of including global variables—oil prices (oil price), economic activity demand shocks (Activity), oil supply shocks (Supply), and oil inventory demand shocks (Inventory)—in our global VAR model. Specifically, we conduct weak exogeneity tests following the methodology outlined VOL. 47 NO. 3 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis 83 FIGURE 8. DOMESTIC GDP RESPONSES TO OIL PRICE SHOCKS Note: The solid line represents the median response of domestic GDP to a one-standard-deviation shock in oil prices (oil price shock itself), estimated from the GVAR model. The dotted lines indicate the corresponding 90% bootstrap confidence intervals. Source: Calculated by the author.  FIGURE 9. CPI RESPONSES TO OIL PRICE SHOCKS Note: The solid line represents the median response of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to a one-standard-deviation shock in oil prices (oil price shock itself), estimated from the GVAR model. The dotted lines indicate the corresponding 90% bootstrap confidence intervals. Source: Calculated by the author. 84 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 of differentiating among structural shocks to assess macroeconomic impacts more comprehensively. Overall, the comparative assessment of selected countries highlights substantial differences in macroeconomic outcomes compared to analyses not accounting for structural distinctions. Canada, China, the United States, and Korea generally demonstrated positive responses to economic activity shocks, though China displayed mixed or slightly negative responses in some scenarios. Specifically, Korea presented particular complexities in that positive economic responses occasionally coincided with unexpected declines in consumer prices, suggesting possible country-specific structural or market factors complicating straightforward interpretations. Similarly, China’s economic responses to certain oil shocks, while negative in some cases, were statistically insignificant, highlighting the interpretative challenges inherent in analyses not specifically identifying structural shocks. These findings emphasize a critical point: without explicit structural shock analyses, identifying the broader macroeconomic implications of oil price fluctuations remains challenging. Interpreting these shocks merely as short-term cost increases can lead to oversimplified and potentially misguided policy recommendations. Therefore, our analysis highlights the importance of explicitly distinguishing economic activity, supply, and inventory shocks, providing policymakers and researchers with nuanced insights into the diverse macroeconomic impacts associated with oil price fluctuations. This understanding is essential for developing informed and targeted policy responses that mitigate macroeconomic risks, enhance economic resilience, and strengthen macroeconomic stability amid ongoing global energy transitions and persistent geopolitical uncertainties. In addition to structural shocks (economic activity, oil supply, and inventory shocks), we also directly analyze the macroeconomic responses to shocks stemming from oil price changes themselves. This analysis allows for a comparative assessment of the effects from explicitly identified structural shocks versus direct price fluctuations without structural identification. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the responses of domestic GDP and consumer prices, respectively, to these direct oil price shocks. Notably, the responses to direct oil price shocks exhibit substantially different patterns compared to responses explicitly linked to structural factors, highlighting the potential risks of interpreting oil price changes solely as exogenous price movements. These findings further reinforce the importance of explicitly analyzing structural shocks to avoid misinterpretations regarding macroeconomic implications, a point also underscored by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019) and Cashin et al. (2014).   V. Summary and Implications  This paper empirically analyzed the macroeconomic impacts of structural oil price shocks using a global vector autoregression (GVAR) framework, incorporating the structural shock classification established by Baumeister and Hamilton (2019). We explicitly distinguished among economic activity shocks related to global demand conditions, oil supply shocks from geopolitical disruptions or production constraints, and oil inventory demand shocks reflecting market expectations about future supplydemand imbalances. This classification enabled a detailed assessment of the VOL. 47 NO. 3 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis 85 macroeconomic effects associated with different types of oil shocks, particularly relevant for small open economies such as Korea, given its high dependency on imported energy and sensitivity to global oil price volatility. Our analysis indicates substantial variation in macroeconomic outcomes depending on the type of structural shock. Economic activity shocks, driven by global demand changes, generally had positive effects on economic growth across the selected countries (Korea, Canada, China, and the United States). During periods of global economic expansion, industrial production, consumption, and GDP growth responded positively. However, these shocks also resulted in increased inflationary pressures due to higher energy and transportation costs. Inflation responses were statistically significant in Canada, China, and the United States but were less pronounced and statistically weaker in Korea. These differences may stem from factors such as energy market structures, regulatory environments, and the mechanisms transmitting oil price fluctuations to domestic prices—all areas requiring further research. Negative oil supply shocks, typically resulting from geopolitical disruptions or production constraints, showed pronounced differences between oil-importing and oil-exporting countries. Oil-importing nations such as Korea and China experienced immediate negative economic effects from increased import costs, higher production expenses, and reduced consumer purchasing power. In contrast, oil-exporting countries such as the United States and Canada benefitted from higher oil prices, driven by their capacity to expand domestic production and exports. It should be noted, however, that additional complexities—such as market competition or production flexibility—were beyond the scope of this analysis. The study also underscores the significance of oil inventory demand shocks, reflecting shifts in market expectations pertaining to future supply-demand imbalances. Inventory-driven shocks caused short-term volatility in oil prices and inflation, with differing implications for various economies. For oil-importing countries, increased oil inventories typically lowered oil prices, temporarily reducing inflationary pressures and production costs. However, for economies such as Korea, heavily reliant on petrochemical exports, falling oil prices could potentially compress profit margins and weaken export competitiveness, suggesting the need for sector-specific analyses. In oil-exporting nations such as Canada and the United States, increased oil inventories were initially associated with temporary declines in immediate demand, leading to reduced production and investment levels. These negative effects were short-lived, with market adjustments quickly restoring equilibrium and supporting an economic recovery. Consumer price responses to inventory shocks were modest and temporary, requiring further investigation, particularly concerning inventory management practices and market dynamics. Our empirical results also confirmed the assumption of weak exogeneity for global variables within the GVAR framework, supporting the validity of our model. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to potential data or model limitations not explicitly tested here. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the critical importance of distinguishing clearly among different structural shocks when analyzing oil price fluctuations. Recognizing the specific macroeconomic impacts associated with each shock type helps policymakers tailor responses to mitigate risks and enhance economic resilience. Given ongoing global energy transitions and geopolitical uncertainties, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of oil market dynamics and 86 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 to refine methods for identifying structural shocks, ultimately supporting more effective and targeted policy decisions. VOL. 47 NO. 3 The Macroeconomic Effects of Structural Oil Price Shocks: An International GVAR Analysis 87 APPENDIX  TABLE A1—DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF GLOBAL VARIABLES Statistics Mean Median Maximum Minimum Std. dev. Skewness Kurtosis Oil Price 3.741 3.868 4.811 2.407 0.691 - 0.136 1.658 Demand - 0.024 0.007 1.368 - 1.722 0.356 - 0.633 8.811 Oil I nvent - 0.110 - 0.102 1.298 - 1.615 0.635 - 0.125 2.790 Oil S upply - 0.137 - 0.134 2.566 - 3.778 0.750 - 0.522 7.447 Source: Calculated by the author.   TABLE A2—ORDER OF WEAK EXOGENEITY REGRESSION EQUATIONS (p*: lag order of domestic variables, q*: lag order of foreign variables) Country p* q* ARGENTINA 1 2 AUSTRALIA 1 2 BRAZIL 1 2 CANADA 1 2 CHINA 2 2 CHILE 1 2 EURO 1 2 INDIA 1 2 INDONESIA 1 2 JAPAN 1 2 KOREA 1 2 MALAYSIA 1 2 MEXICO 1 2 NORWAY 1 2 NEW ZEALAND 1 2 PERU 1 2 PHILIPPINES 1 2 SOUTH AFRICA 1 1 SAUDI ARABIA 1 2 SINGAPORE 1 2 SWEDEN 1 1 SWITZERLAND 1 2 THAILAND 1 2 TURKEY 1 2 UK 1 1 USA 1 2 Source: Calculated by the author.   88 KDI Journal of Economic Policy August 2025 REFERENCES   Baumeister, Christiane and James D. Hamilton. 2019. “Structural Interpretation of Vector Autoregressions with Incomplete Identification: Revisiting the Role of Oil Supply and Demand Shocks,” American Economic Review, 109(5): 1873-1910. Cashin, Paul, Kamiar Mohaddes, Maziar Raissi, and Mehdi Raissi. 2014. “The Differential Effects of Oil Demand and Supply Shocks on the Global Economy,” Energy Economics, 44(C): 113-134 Chudik, Alexander and M. Hashem Pesaran. 2015. “Common Correlated Effects Estimation of Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel Data Models with Weakly Exogenous Regressors,” Journal of Econometrics, 188(2): 393-420. Jamie L. Cross, Bao H. Nguyen, and Trung Duc Tran. 2020. “The Role of Precautionary and Speculative Demand in the Global Market for Crude Oil,” CAMA Working Paper No. 34. Hamilton, J. D. 1983. “Oil and the Macroeconomy since World War II,” Journal of Political Economy, 91(2): 228-248. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2023. “World Energy Outlook 2023. Paris: International Energy Agency,” Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023. Kilian, Lutz. 2009. “Not All Oil Price Shocks Are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks in the Crude Oil Market,” American Economic Review, 99(3): 1053-1069. Kilian, Lutz, Alessandro Rebucci, and Nikola Spatafora. 2009. “Oil Shocks and External Balances,” Journal of International Economics, 77(2): 181-194. Koop, G., M. H. Pesaran, and S. M. Potter. 1996. “Impulse Response Analysis in Nonlinear Multivariate Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 74(1): 119-147. Mohaddes, K. and M. Raissi. 2020. “Compilation, Revision and Updating of the Global VAR (GVA R ) Database,” Cambridge Working Papers in Economics. Peersman Gert and Ine Van Robays. 2012. “Cross-Country Differences in the Effects of Oil Shocks,” Energy Economics, 34(5): 1532-1547. Kim, Yun-Yeong and Park, Joon-Yong. 2009.tTransmission Effects of Foreign Shock: Global Structural VAR Approach,” Bank of Korea Analysis of Financial Economy, 358: 1-32 (in Korean). Shin, Yongcheol, Sangdon Boo, and Yongmin Kim. 2013. “Measuring the Connectedness of the Korean Financial System: The GVAR-GCM Modeling Approach,” Bank of Korea (in Korean). Ahn, Sungbae, Sungyup Cho, Jeong Ho Kim, and Kang-Hoon Lee. 2017. Changes in International Energy Market and Their Impact on the Korean Economy. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP) Research Report, Vol. 17, No. 27. (in Korean). Chung, Jun Hwan. 2014. The Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Price Shocks in Korea. Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI). (in Korean). Chon, Sora and Kyu-Chul Jung. 2021. Recent Oil Price Hikes and the Ripple Effect on the Korean Economy. KDI Economic Outlook, First Half 2021. (in Korean). LITERATURE IN KOREAN  ӣ ӣ৔ԫ߅ળ  |Ӗ۽ߥ ҳઑ 7"3 ݽഋ ೠ ೧৻୽Ѻ ౵әബҗ ࠙ࢳ} ~҃ઁ೟োҳ  ୍ԫ࢚ࠗتԫӣ޹  |.FBTVSJOHUIF$POOFDUFEOFTTPG,PSFBO'JOBODJBM4ZTUFN5IF(7"3 ($..PEFMJOH"QQSPBDI} ೠҴ೯ উࢿߓԫউࢿߓԫӣӝജԫӣࣻ࠼ԫ૓൞ԫೠ޹ࣻ |Ҵઁীց૑ ҳઑ߸ച Ѣ҃ઁബҗ ࠙ࢳ} ~؀৻҃ઁ ଼োҳোҳࠁҊࢲ ળജ  |о߸ز Ҵղ Ѣ҃ઁ ౵әബҗ ࠙ࢳ} ীց૑҃ઁোҳ ୌࣗۄԫӏ୍  |୭Ӕ о ࢚ Ҵղ ҃ઁ ౵әബҗ} ~,%* ҃ઁݎ֙ ࢚߈ӝ