Search

Begin New Search Topic Economics Political Geography South Korea

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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. An Analysis on India's Foreign Economic Relations and Its Implications for Korea-India Cooperation

Author:
Jeeyon Janet Kim, Hyoungmin Han, Hyeyoon Keum, and Jonghun Pek
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
Economic exchanges between Korea and India have been expanding since the signing of the Korea-India CEPA, which took effect in 2010, and the promotion of the New Southern Policy (NSP) by Korea, but the level of exchange still remains insufficient considering the potential of the two countries. We aim to contribute to deepening Korea-India trade cooperation by analyzing India's foreign trade investment relations. Part II and III examine India's recent trade and investment structure with major countries including Korea, and Part IV analyzes India's status on the global production networks. In conclusion, Part V presents various implications for Korea-India trade cooperation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, Asia, and South Korea

7. Is South Korea vulnerable to EU and US carbon border restrictions?

Author:
Jeffrey J. Schott and Megan Hogan
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
South Korean exports, especially carbon-intensive products like steel, are increasingly vulnerable to both the European Union’s proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM)—set to begin on January 1, 2023—and the proposed Clean Competition Act (CCA) before the US Congress. Schott and Hogan caution that Korean exporters should not count on Korea’s decade-old EU and US free trade agreements (FTAs), nor on the multilateral trading rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), to protect them from new carbon-based import barriers in key foreign markets. The WTO and the FTAs have broad and loosely defined exemptions for environmental protection. Nor is Korea likely to be shielded by its own cap-and-trade emissions trading system (the K-ETS), because of extensive use of free allowances and large differences between EU and Korean carbon prices. While the threat the EU CBAM poses to Korean exports is imminent, passage of the CCA faces major legislative obstacles. But US imports of Korean steel and other carbon-intensive goods are still subject to climate-related duties at the US border under US unfair trade statutes. The US Department of Commerce has ruled that free allowances issued under the K-ETS (and EU ETS) are implicit subsidies that can be offset by countervailing duties. These charges are in addition to the harsh tariff-rate quotas on imported Korean steel applied under the “national security” authority of Section 232 of US trade law, which are more restrictive than measures imposed against European and other steel exporters. The authors suggest relaxing these US barriers, as they have been for shipments from Europe, in return for Korean participation in the nascent US-EU talks to establish a “Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum.”
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, European Union, Exports, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

8. South Korea should prepare for its exposure to US-China technology tensions

Author:
Mary Lovely and Abigail Dahlman
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The stated goal of the US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) is to create standards that enhance and elevate regional trade and investment flows, but it is clearly aimed at reducing the role of China in global supply chains. As China is Korea’s largest trading partner, US policy discouraging Chinese participation in supply chains has immediate detrimental implications for Korean manufacturers. The United States is the second-most important destination for Korean exports. Given the values of these triangular trade flows, Lovely and Dahlman assess South Korea’s exposure to US demands to remove or reduce Chinese participation in the manufacture of exports destined for the US market. The reliance of the proposed framework on certain standards will likely reduce Chinese participation in IPEF trade networks. Korea may benefit from this trend, but IPEF could also increase production costs for Korean companies, especially in the electronics sector, a problem that would worsen if China retaliates against these companies. To reduce these risks, Korea might find it prudent to reduce its reliance on intermediate goods from China for products it produces for export to the United States. The Korean government should also seek to better understand its exposure to US–China trade tensions and diversify its trade relations. Korean firms should start preparing for supply chain disruptions, perhaps by making investments at home. Korea could also help other IPEF members reduce supply chain disruptions while addressing security concerns over China.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Supply Chains, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

9. China's CPTPP bid spurs South Korea to act on Asia-Pacific trade pacts

Author:
Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
China’s sudden application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in September 2021 has broad implications for South Korea’s economic relations with China, Japan, and the United States. In the past, Korea frequently debated but invariably postponed deciding whether to participate in negotiations on the CPTPP, despite the substantial benefits to be gained from doing so. However, China’s application has prompted Korean officials to get off the fence and apply as well. As China moves to deepen its ties to regional partners, Korea needs to follow suit, complementing the ongoing implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) with expedited negotiations to join the CPTPP and participation in the US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Korean participation in the RCEP, CPTPP, and IPEF is desirable and mutually reinforcing and should allow Korea to sustain its strong commercial interests in both the US and Chinese markets.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, South Korea, and Asia-Pacific

10. Why gender disparities persist in South Korea’s labor market

Author:
Karen Dynan, Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, and Anna Stansbury
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Although the South Korean economy fared relatively well on the whole during the pandemic, the labor market consequences were uneven, with women experiencing worse outcomes than men. These gender disparities have reinforced and highlighted important longer-term gender-related challenges in the South Korean labor market. Despite an above-average level of female tertiary education, the gender pay gap in South Korea is at the top of the range among OECD countries. The labor force participation rate is 20 percentage points lower for women than for men, a difference that is about one-quarter larger than the average for high-income countries. These disparities—as well as fertility that is the lowest of any advanced economy country in the world—reduce South Korea's future economic prospects and will contribute to fiscal challenges as the population rapidly ages. The analysis in this paper suggests that the combination of low female employment and low fertility in South Korea reflects features of the traditional nature of work that create a particularly stark tradeoff for women between work and family and put pressure on women to choose one or the other. This tradeoff has increased in recent years because the opportunity cost of having a child has risen with the rapid growth in the tertiary education rate of South Korean women. Regressions based on individual-level data from the Korean Labor and Income Panel Study (KLIPS) show that the entire gap in female labor force participation is driven by married women, particularly women with children. Unmarried women with no children are just as likely to be employed as men. A sizable "child earnings penalty" for South Korean women is fully explained by women dropping out of the labor force after the birth of their first child rather than reducing hours or hourly wages. Although South Korea has made strides toward making work more family friendly, there is scope to do better.
Topic:
Economics, Inequality, Labor Market, Fertility, and Gender
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea