Search

Begin New Search Topic Economics Political Geography South Korea Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Developing ODA Evaluation Methodology for Technical Cooperation

Author:
Eunsuk Lee and Hyemin Yoon
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
As the volume of Korea's official development assistance (ODA) expands, the demand for systematic management of evaluations and improvement of their usefulness is increasing. This study focuses on developing evaluation methodology for technical cooperation (TC) which is an important part of Korea’s ODA. Based on the case studies of six multilateral organizations and four bilateral development agencies, we draw lessons for Korean ODA agencies in terms of selection criteria, types, and methodological aspects of evaluation of technical cooperation and propose a four-step project management and evaluation mechanism for TC activities.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Science and Technology, and Management
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

2. Does Institutional Quality Matter to Korean Outward FDI? A Gravity Model Analysis

Author:
Muhammad Akhtaruzzaman
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
According to Korea’s Ministry of Knowledge Economy (currently the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy), foreign investment has now become one of the major economic pillars driving the Korean economy over the past 15 years (Tang 2022). The Korean economy started to open up to rest of the world following the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and was the biggest FDI policy reformer among 40 developed and emerging economies over the period from 1997 to 2010 (Nicolas et al. 2013). Over the last decade, Korea’s outward FDI grew much faster than inward FDI (See Figure 1) and Korea is now a net capital exporter to the world. In 2021, Korea’s outward FDI flows totaled $76.64 billion and a total of 2323 Korean enterprises invested in overseas countries (Korea EXIM Bank 2022). Due to this increased amount of outward FDI, a large number of studies (Kim and Rhee 2009; Park and Jung 2020) investigated what determines Korea’s outward FDI (OFDI). Institutional quality is found to be a major determinant in FDI literature in general. It suggests that political risk (lack of/poor institutional quality) not only deters FDI inflows to host countries but also can lead FDI to countries with higher risks and to ‘pollution heaven’ which might have an adverse impact on long term growth and development in both host and home countries. There are strong empirical evidences in literature that lack of institutional quality or good governance is associated with lower FDI inflows. An extensive literature (Alfaro et al. 2008; Ali et al. 2010; Akhtaruzzaman et al. 2017; Bénassy‐Quéré et al. 2007) investigated FDI response to various types of institutional quality in FDI host countries. Over the last 20 years data evidenced that Korea’s OFDI flowed to developing countries with a sustained large gap existing in institutional quality between host countries and Korea (See, Fig 2 top panel); however; those countries had been offering a higher degree of capital account openness. A sharp increase in capital account openness since the early 2000s coincides with sharp increase in Korea’s OFDI to those host countries. For example, Peru was the least open economy and started to initiate measures to open capital account since the mid-90s and early 2000s. The degree of openness in Peru is now similar to that of developed countries. On the other hand, Peru is one of the least progressed countries in terms of institutional quality over the same period of time. This slow or no progress in institutional quality is a common pattern of institutional improvement for a large sample of host countries of Korea’s OFDI (see, Figure 2). However, those developing countries including Peru are regular destinations of a substantial amount of Korea’s OFDI. Does this suggest that institutional quality of host country does not matter to Korean investors, or is there a 3rd factor mitigating the impact of institutional quality on Korea’s OFDI? Few studies on Korea’s OFDI considered institutional quality of host country as a control variable instead of main determinant of FDI (Park and Jung 2020). However, existing studies do not explain why Korea’s OFDI flowed to countries with a large gap in institutional quality between Korea and host countries. This research fills the gap in the literature of Korea’s OFDI. The findings of this research suggest that high degree of capital account openness (a factor that ensures profit repatriation of investors) weakened the negative impact of poor institutional quality in host countries on Korea’s OFDI. The remaining of this paper is organised as follows. Section II reviews relevant literature of FDI and identifies major determinants for Korea’s OFDI from existing studies; Section III discusses research method and empirical issues; Section IV presents the research findings; Section V concludes the research, points to the research limitations, and provides policy recommendations.
Topic:
Economics, Foreign Direct Investment, Institutions, and Knowledge Economy
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

3. Strategies of Multinational Companies Entering China in the Era of U.S.-China Competition and Implications for Korea

Author:
Sang Baek Hyun, Ji Young Moon, Min-suk Park, Jonghyuk Oh, and Yunmi Oh
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
With the integration of resources and markets around the world sparked by the trend of globalization, multinational companies have continued to grow at a rapid pace. In particular, global manufacturers have maintained their competitiveness by distributing resources more efficiently while establishing a global value chain with China as their main production hub. However, measures taken by the U.S. to block China’s access to technology and supply chains in some high-tech industries have prompted discussions on reorganization of the global supply chain, placing these multinational companies in an uncertain situation concerning their operations in China. At a time when competition between the U.S. and China is intensifying, it is necessary to look at the response strategies of global companies that have entered China and seek effective countermeasures for Korean companies.
Topic:
Economics, Multinational Corporations, Manufacturing, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

4. Korea Matters for America/America Matters for Korea (2023)

Author:
East-West Center
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
The 4th edition of Korea Matters for America/America Matters for Korea, part of the Asia Matters for America initiative, maps the trade, investment, employment, business, diplomacy, security, education, tourism, and people-to-people connections between the United States and South Korea at the national, state, and local levels. This publication and the AsiaMattersforAmerica.org website are resources for understanding the robust and dynamic US-Indo-Pacific relationship.
Topic:
International Relations, Climate Change, Economics, Education, Environment, Politics, Science and Technology, Governance, Population, Public Health, and Travel
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

5. The Demise of Diplomatic Ambiguity: Parsing South Korea’s Estrangement From China

Author:
Matthew Fulco
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
In July, the US Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN) visited South Korea for the first time since 1981. Not one, but two of the 560-foot-long warships—which carried a payload of 24 long-range Trident ballistic missiles—surfaced in South Korean waters (Korea JoongAn Daily, July 24, 2023). From Washington and Seoul’s perspective, the SSBN deployment was a pointed reminder to the mercurial North Korean regime to exercise restraint, but the symbolism of the SSBN visit was not lost on China—Pyongyang’s closest ally. For all its military modernization efforts, Beijing has no effective defense against the Ohio-class sub. That South Korea would support the deployment of the SSBNs to its territory illustrates both its concern about rising North Korean brinkmanship and newfound willingness to risk Beijing’s ire. Indeed, after three decades of stable ties anchored in economic interdependence, major changes are afoot in the South Korea-China relationship. Compared to Japan, which also counts China as its largest trading partner, South Korea has historically been less willing to stand its ground in the face of political pressure from Beijing. On the one hand, Seoul and Beijing have no major territorial disputes, but more importantly, South Korea had previously calculated that its political deference—especially on China’s “core interests” like Taiwan—would encourage Beijing to support denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) top foreign policy objective. For many years, South Korea handled Beijing with kid gloves, irrespective of who was in the Blue House. While the left-leaning Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) is traditionally more China-friendly, it was the conservative President Park Geun-hye who attended China’s jingoistic September 2015 military parade. After a summit between Xi Jinping and Park, both leaders made a commitment to oppose any unilateral actions that could lead to tension on the Korean Peninsula. The following day, President Park joined Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin in China’s military parade. South Korea was the only US ally to attend the event (The Korea Herald, September 3, 2015). Since then, however, the two countries have drifted apart. The catalyst for this change was Seoul’s decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system in 2017, which China views as a security threat and South Korea deems essential for self-defense. China has repeatedly demanded that South Korea dismantle its THAAD system (Xinhua, September 21, 2017). When those demands failed to bear fruit, it resorted to sanctions against South Korea (The Korea Herald, March 8, 2017). Furthermore, both China’s imposition of a draconian national security law in Hong Kong and its mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic have hurt its reputation in South Korea (The South China Morning Post, October 20, 2020). It is against this backdrop that the ROK’s anti-China sentiment has surged to an all-time high—a development that will inevitably spill over into Seoul’s foreign policy. According to a 2021 survey conducted by SisaIN, for the first time since the ROK and the PRC normalized relations in 1992, South Koreans view China even more negatively than they do Japan (SisaIN, November 29, 2021). China’s ruling Communist Party seems oblivious to the existential threat that South Korea feels in the face of surging missile tests by North Korea. The JoongAng Daily noted in June that it takes just two minutes for a North Korean missile to hit Seoul. According to the editorial, “South Korea is technically still at war with North Korea. The government and people must not forget that” (Yonhap News Agency, June 1, 2023). Concluding that political appeasement and economic engagement with China have failed to pay off, South Korea is taking two significant steps: strengthening its ties with its top security partner, the US, and mending fences with its former rival, Japan. The implications of Seoul’s estrangement from Beijing could have far-reaching implications for geopolitics in the broader Indo Pacific region.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Economics, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South Korea

6. The Effects of Online Export Promotion Policies for SMEs in Korea

Author:
Kyong Hyun Koo
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study explores the impact of participating in five major online export support programs currently being implemented by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups on online exports of SMEs in 2018-20. The main findings show that the online export support program appear to significantly have improved the online export-related performance of participating SMEs in a short period of time. In addition, the online export support program’s online export enhancement effect tend to be relatively greater when the participating SMEs have relatively little experience with online export and low sales volume. Manufacturers also appear to benefit from support programs more than resellers. In summary, the findings suggest that Korea's online export support policy has had a significant impact in providing incentives for SMEs to start/increase online exporting.
Topic:
Economics, Business, Exports, and Manufacturing
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

7. Digital Divide in Latin America and Opportunities for South Korea-Spain Cooperation

Author:
Angela Sagnella
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
The purpose of this brief report is to sketch the current characteristics of the digital divide in Latin America, especially following the effects generated by the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, in an attempt to understand its crucial aspects and possible outlooks. In this regard, South Korea-Spain future cooperation on digitalization in Latin America will be discussed, as the two countries – by virtue of the long diplomatic tradition that unites them – are developing new horizons of cooperation to fill digital gaps in Latin America.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, COVID-19, and Digital Cooperation
Political Geography:
South Korea, Latin America, and Spain

8. The Export Effect of Servitization of Manufacturing

Author:
Hyunsoo Kim, Jungu Kang, Hyeyoon Keum, and Jae Wook Jung
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study examines the status and characteristics of Korea’s servitization of manufacturing and its impact on business performance and exports. In particular, we focus on servitization in manufacturing, which can be seen as a part of servicification in manufacturing. It is the phenomenon of manufacturing firms producing more services as final goods and provide them to the market with their products. Looking at the status of servitization in the manufacturing sectors focusing on the service sales generated by manufacturing firms, the servitization in manufacturing in Korea has gradually increased. Sales in service sectors, which stood at 4.5% of the total sales of manufacturing firms in 2012, surged to 15.9% in 2017, and then decreased to 6.9% in 2019. Based on the stylized fact that servitization in manufacturing in Korea has gradually increased, we empirically analyze the effect of servitization in manufacturing on the business performances and exports. The result suggets that the servitization in manufacturing is progressing in the direction of improving firm’s productivity, profitability, and exports.
Topic:
Economics, Business, Manufacturing, and Services
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

9. Korea's Economic Presence in Iran under Trump and Its Prospects during the Biden Presidency

Author:
Shirzad Azad
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
On July 14, 2015, when Iran and the 5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) ultimately agreed over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Republic of Korea (ROK) was practically one of the top three trade partners of the Persian Gulf country. In early May 2016 and only a few months after the nuclear deal was carried through, the then Korean President, Park Geun-hye, made an official visit to Iran where the two countries vowed to ratchet up their economic relations from roughly $6 billion to more than $18 billion in the years to come. Accompanied by “the largest business delegation in the history of Korean presidential trips,” Park’s high-profile trip to Iran persuaded many interested experts and observers to believe that the East Asian country was really determined to shore up its economic weight in Iran by drawing certain policies relevant to the long-term presence of Korean businesses in the Middle Eastern country (Choi 2016). Despite all those upbeat expectations about the ROK’s future economic and technological role in Iran, however, various data and statistics coming out indicate that over the past several years nearly all well-known Korean brands and products have increasingly lost their market share in the Mideast country to brands and goods supplied by other competitors. As a matter of fact, in the late 1990s and early 2000s the East Asian nation emerged as one of the Persian Gulf country’s top trading partners in the world, outstripping a number of Tehran’s traditional trading partners from the West. And while Korea managed to even expand its economic presence in Iran in the heydays of sundry international sanctions levied against the Middle Eastern country over its contentious nuclear program a couple of years before the JCPOA was eventually agreed in 2015, the ROK has been doing relatively poor in Iran during the past years (Azad 2018). Such lackadaisical performance, epitomized by abandoning the long-established pattern of significant trade in energy with Iran, has critically influenced a sharp decline in the total volume of two-way commerce between the two countries. While the plummeting share of Korean brands and goods in Iranian markets had indubitably something to do with certain policies pursued by the Moon Jae-in-led Korean government, however, the main culprit turned out to be the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May 2018. The crippling sanctions which Washington under Trump subsequently imposed on Iran played a pivotal role in reshaping the scope and size of Korean commercial connections to the Persian Gulf country, though some unprecedented diplomatic and political troubles involving Seoul and Tehran during the past years have also had a lot to do with those punitive economic and financial measures targeting the Iranians. How did then the Koreans respond to those unique circumstances rendered largely by Trump’s approach toward the Persian Gulf country? What are going to be the prospects of a Biden administration’s policy shift for Korea’s economic performance in Iran? This study seeks to shed some light on Trump’s Iran policy with regard to Korea, its repercussions for the East Asian nation’s economic relationship with the Middle Eastern country, and potential solutions to chip away at those impediments under a Democrat administration in Washington led by Joe Biden.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Donald Trump, JCPOA, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Iran, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

10. Korea’s Regional Cooperation and ODA Policy in Asia: Performance and Challenges

Author:
Aila Yoo and Yul Kwon
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing geopolitical conflicts have deteriorated socio-economic conditions all around the world. As developing countries in Asia have made enormous progress in economic and social development based on the stable ground for growth, the development gap within the region has also been expanded. In addition, the region’s socio-economic conditions have become worse after the pandemic. Along with the pandemic crisis, there are several issues that have negatively influenced the region’s sustainable growth, such as climate change and climate-related natural disasters, and conflicts. These multiple crises change the development needs in the region, and cannot be solved through the efforts of any sole country but must be tackled through regional cooperation. While Korea strengthens its strategic approach for regional economic cooperation to expand its partnership with emerging countries and its Official Development Assistance (ODA) volume is highly concentrated in Asia region, Korea still focuses on cooperation with each country based on priority countries’ Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) without any integrated regional cooperation strategy. Strengthening inclusive partnerships would be a key to reduce the development gap in the region, by supporting regional programs such as the ASEAN Connectivity and Mekong Subregion development projects. To improve policy coherence and tackle the region-wide problems, Korea should adopt an integrated regional cooperation approach by reflecting the characteristics of Asia. This study analyzes changes in the socio-economic conditions and development environment in the Asia region and provides policy implications for preparing regional cooperation strategy for Asia.
Topic:
Economics, Regional Cooperation, Partnerships, Economic Cooperation, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea