Search

Begin New Search Topic Economy Political Geography Asia

71. COVID-19 and the Health of Banking Sector in Japan and South Korea: A Comparative Study

Author:
Munim Kumar Barai
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
The economies of Japan and South Korea are dominated by banks. Both countries have created a complex financial structure, including a well-established banking industry at their heart that supports economic operations. However, both countries’ banking sectors have previously faced crises such as the Asian Financial Crisis (mostly in South Korea), the Japanese economic slowdown, and the financial crisis of 2007-08 (both). While the Bank of Japan (BOJ) approved the quantitative easing (QE) monetary policy and lowered interest rates to manage the crises, the Bank of Korea (BOK) pursued interest and financial restructuring as well as banking system digitization to overcome the crises. Covid-19 has disrupted the normal operation of banks, and the central banks and governments of both countries have implemented a variety of monetary and other measures to mitigate its economic and financial consequences. This study aims to identify and assess the health of domestic banks in Japan and South Korea for the Covid-19 ex-ante and interim periods. Several important variables, i.e., portfolios of assets and liabilities, asset productivity, stockholders' equity, profitability, and operating efficiency, have been included to evaluate the health of their banks. This compari-son of health metrics for 2010 to 2020 could help identify changes or shifts in the banking sector of Japan and Korea. The study has used ex-ploratory and descriptive methodologies to undertake qualitative and quantitative evaluations of important bank health indicators in the ex-ante and interim periods of Covid-19. It also used a hybrid method to produce research goals and arguments, including a framework based on what was already known in the field.
Topic:
Financial Crisis, Economy, COVID-19, and Banking
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, and South Korea

72. Accelerating Transitions towards a Circular Economy and Policy Implications for Korea

Author:
Jinyoung Moon, Youngseok Park, Seung Kwon Na, Sunghee Lee, and Eunmi Kim
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study analyzes global efforts to transition to a circular economy, and analyzes each country's responses and major issues to the stages of waste generation and management, which decisively distinguish the existing economic system from the circular economy. In addition, this study examines cases of private-sector-led cooperation for sup-porting developing countries in terms of international cooperation and linking with international trade, and also analyzes the implications of information-based environmental policies in response to the circular economy. Finally, based on the results of these analyses, this study proposes policy measures to prepare for the circular economy.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Economy, Trade, Private Sector, and Management
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

73. A Review of the First Decade of the Korea-EU FTA

Author:
Dong-Hee Joe
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
Last year marked the tenth anniversary of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the European Union (EU) and Korea, which entered into force in 2011. The EU is the world's largest economy and Korea's third largest trade partner, only after China and the United States. Back when the FTA nego-tiations began in 2007, the EU was Korea's second largest export destination, from which Korea enjoyed the largest surplus. Al-so, more than 35 per cent of Korea's foreign direct investment came from the member states of the EU. Korea is also a major econ-omy and a major trade partner of the EU, especially in Asia. The FTA with Korea was the first case of the EU's “next generation” FTAs, and is considered to have served as a benchmark for the EU's bilateral trade agreements thereafter (Kang 2016). As for Korea, it was the first FTA with a major economy, even before the US, its traditional ally, and China, its closest neighbor. Because of its importance, the Korea-EU FTA has received attention from economics and trade policy. KIEP also took a look at the first decade of its implementation last year (Joe et al. 2021). This Brief introduces some of the findings in Joe et al. (2021), fo-cusing on the impact of the FTA on the bi-lateral economic relationship between the two sides.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, and South Korea

74. Internationalization of the Korean Won in the Light of RMB Internationalization

Author:
Hyo Sang Kim, Young Sik Jeong, Ji Young Moon, and Da Young Yang
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
While China has risen to become a global superpower with a growing impact on the world economy, its currency, the Renminbi (RMB), has a limited role in the existing international financial system. China has made significant progress and will continue to push for the internationalization of the RMB, which can disrupt the global financial system, dominated by the US dollar. Under such circumstances, Korea must find a new direction for the internationalization of the Korean Won. The internationalization of the Korean won will provide new opportunities for the economy to take a further step through financial advancement.
Topic:
Economy, Currency, Internationalization, and Financial Development
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South Korea

75. Why Brazil Sought Chinese Investments to Diversify Its Manufacturing Economy

Author:
Celo Hiratuka
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, economic relations between Brazil and China have grown significantly. The main driver of this process has been China’s enormous demand for agricultural, energy, and mineral commodities. On the one hand, Brazil’s strong competitiveness in these products has helped the country consolidate its role as an important supplier to China, increasing exports and turning China into the main destination for Brazilian exports since 2009.1 On the other hand, China, by virtue of its status as the “factory of the world,” has established itself as the main supplier of manufactured products to Brazil.2 Nonetheless, Brazilian scholars, think tanks, and private manufacturing firms have raised concerns. They have done so despite the great boost in bilateral trade flows; the favorable trade balance for Brazil; and the leveraging of businesses in several Brazilian sectors such as soybeans, iron ore, and oil. These concerns are related to the excessive concentration of Brazilian exports in a few products, the environmental impacts of these exporting activities, and the effects of strong Chinese manufacturing competition on Brazil’s domestic market. These worries have become more significant when one considers the growing importance of manufacturing changes with the diffusion of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies and the search for new renewable energy sources and environmental sustainability. For Brazil, this matter reflects a need to advance bilateral relations beyond existing export trade volumes and toward new drivers of more diversified economic growth that will help the country escape a specialization in commodities. The fortunes of the Chinese company BYD in Brazil are highly relevant to these trends. BYD is a company that has diversified from the production of batteries into different innovative industrial sectors, such as renewable energy and electric vehicles. BYD has also been expanding rapidly in international markets, and in that process it chose Brazil as an important market, where it has built factories to produce electric bus chassis, photovoltaic panels, and batteries for electric buses. BYD’s trajectory in Brazil certainly has not been smooth. On the contrary, the firm has had to adapt to market fluctuations and, above all, to changes in the Brazilian government’s economic policies, which have made the company’s experience in the country quite turbulent. Despite this, BYD survived its first years in Brazil and more recently has been showing signs of continuing to invest in the Brazilian market. Analysis of BYD’s experience in Brazil shows, on the one hand, that there are important possibilities for new economic relations with China that go beyond trade in commodities, with productive investments that can potentially help Brazil simultaneously incorporate more knowledge-intensive activities and drive positive environmental impacts by generating renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. On the other hand, the story of BYD also shows that the transformation of these possibilities into effective benefits requires coordinated actions on the part of Brazilian policymakers to offer a long-term horizon for Chinese investments. In that spirit, Brazil must craft a long-term strategy for its economic relationship with China to increase the odds that bilateral engagement can advance in a new and more sustainable, mutually beneficial direction.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Economy, Investment, Manufacturing, and Engagement
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Brazil, and South America

76. Hard Cash and Soft Power: When Chinese Firms Win EU Contracts

Author:
Allison Carragher
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The European Union is a committed defender of open markets. This extends to its public procurement mechanisms, which remain open to all bidders. EU policymakers have developed tools intended to defend the bloc’s interests in the face of increased economic and strategic competition from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but few policymakers understand how the European public views the debate. As the first major EU-funded, China-built infrastructure project, the Pelješac Bridge in Croatia provides a unique opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis of European public opinion toward EU tendering policy and Chinese companies. Brussels has labelled the PRC a partner for cooperation and negotiation, an economic competitor, and a systemic rival,1 but the nuances of this policy remain difficult to ascertain. Projects and policies presented by China as “cooperation” often contain elements of economic competition or are leveraged by the PRC for strategic gain. However, this dichotomy has not filtered down to citizens. Extensive polling reveals that Croatians share very few of the concerns of EU policymakers. Furthermore, the PRC state-owned construction firm enjoys more visibility than the EU, which provided hundreds of millions of euros for the project. In terms of soft power, which is here defined as the ability of a country to shape the narrative, the Pelješac Bridge has been a resounding success for the PRC. The Croatian public has largely embraced the PRC’s preferred image of itself as a reliable and trustworthy economic partner and a benign power that does not interfere in domestic affairs. This opinion diverges from official EU policy and glosses over evidence of the PRC’s unfair economic practices, environmental and labor shortcomings, and interference in European democracies. Notably, the PRC’s soft-power gains were achieved on the EU’s own dime. It is not in the EU’s interest to bankroll the economic and soft-power ambitions of its systemic rival. As a democratic institution, the EU has a responsibility to both respond to public opinion and educate its citizenry when EU interests are at stake. In this case, the EU should recalibrate its tendering policy to be fairer and better aligned with its own economic and strategic interests. This process is currently underway, but it should also be extended to co-financing arrangements like the Team Europe approach, which combines traditional EU assistance with support from individual EU member states and international financial institutions. These policies must also be paired with renewed efforts at visibility and branding. Lastly, there is a need to collect and publish better data on the end users of EU funds in order to evaluate successes and identify future issues.
Topic:
Infrastructure, European Union, Economy, Business, Soft Power, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China and Asia

77. How the Chinese government is financing its way to becoming a techno-superpower

Author:
Ngor Luong
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
On October 7, the Biden administration announced a new rule to control exports of advanced-computing semiconductor chips to China. As the United States works to cut off technology and capital flows to China, Beijing’s desire to achieve technological self-sufficiency is greater than ever. In fact, during the 20th Party Congress in the following week, Xi Jinping further pledged self-reliance in technology to gain a competitive edge in the tech competition with the United States. Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has sought technology-focused securitization to build an innovation system that supports its broader economic, societal, and geostrategic goals. In response to the economic impact ranging from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to the US-China trade and technology war, the Chinese Politburo unveiled the new “dual circulation” strategy at a Central Financial and Economic Commission meeting in 2020. At its core, dual circulation aims to reduce China’s vulnerability to external shocks, and to increase the country’s self-reliance to better guard against global volatility. The Chinese government works to improve China’s innovation-building capacity by attracting foreign capital and technology know-how in order to maximize their benefits while retaining overall control of the system. Beijing is committed to becoming a state-led and self-sufficient techno-superpower. In doing so, the Chinese government is consolidating its influence in both the domestic market and overseas markets where Chinese firms are active, while simultaneously mobilizing public, private, and public-private investment vehicles to support these tech ambitions. A number of its financial mechanisms have already spanned decades, but others have emerged recently. The decade-long mechanisms have yielded mixed results, while the successes of the new ones remain to be seen. It can thus be expected that the Chinese government will continue to further assert itself in all aspects of the innovation system by providing financial support and political guidance for critical and strategic industries. Within this context, this paper examines the various forms of financing vehicles that involve a range of diverse actors to support China’s whole-of-nation approach in an effort to achieve self-reliance in technology. To conclude, this paper assesses the mechanisms’ successes and shortcomings as well as areas to monitor going forward.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economy, Business, and Innovation
Political Geography:
China and Asia

78. U.S.-China Technological “Decoupling”: A Strategy and Policy Framework

Author:
Jon Bateman
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
A partial “decoupling”2 of U.S. and Chinese technology ecosystems is well underway. Beijing plays an active role in this process, as do other governments and private actors around the world. But the U.S. government has been a primary driver in recent years with its increased use of technology restrictions: export controls, divestment orders, licensing denials, visa bans, sanctions, tariffs, and the like. There is bipartisan support for at least some bolstering of U.S. tech controls, particularly for so-called strategic technologies, where Chinese advancement or influence could most threaten America’s national security and economic interests. But what exactly are these strategic technologies, and how hard should the U.S. government push to control them? Where is the responsible stopping point—the line beyond which technology restrictions aimed at China do more harm than good to America? These are vexing questions with few, if any, clear answers. Yet the United States cannot afford simply to muddle through technological decoupling, one of the most consequential global trends of the early twenty-first century. The U.S. technology base—foundational to national well-being and power—is thoroughly enmeshed with China in a larger, globe-spanning technological web. Cutting many strands of this web to reweave them into new patterns will be daunting and dangerous. Without a clear strategy, the U.S. government risks doing too little or—more likely—too much to curb technological interdependence with China. In particular, Washington may accidentally set in motion a chaotic, runaway decoupling that it cannot predict or control. Sharper thinking and more informed debates are needed to develop a coherent, durable strategy. Today, disparate U.S. objectives are frequently lumped together into amorphous constructs like “technology competition.” Familiar terms like “supply chain security” often fail to clarify such basic matters as which U.S. interests must be secured and why. Important decisions are siloed within opaque forums (like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States [CFIUS]), narrow specialties (like export control law), or individual industries (like semiconductors), concealing the bigger picture. The traditional concerns of “tech policy” and “China policy” receive outsized attention, while second-order implications in other areas (such as climate policy) get short shrift. And as China discourse in the United States becomes more politically charged, arguments for preserving technology ties are increasingly muted or not voiced at all. This report aims to address these gaps and show how American leaders can navigate the vast, perilous, largely unmapped terrain of technological decoupling. First, it gives an overview of U.S. thinking and policy—describing how U.S. views on Chinese technology have evolved in recent years and explaining the many tools that Washington uses to curb U.S.- China technological interdependence. Second, it frames the major strategic choices facing U.S. leaders—summarizing three proposed strategies for technological decoupling and advocating a middle path that preserves and expands America’s options. Third, it translates this strategy into implementable policies and processes—proposing specific objectives for U.S. federal agencies and identifying the technology areas where government controls are (or are not) warranted. The report also highlights many domestic investments and other self-improvement measures that must go hand in hand with restrictive action.
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Authoritarianism, Economy, Espionage, Military, and Interdependence
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

79. Japan’s National Economic Security Strategy and Implications for Korea

Author:
Gyu-Pan Kim
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This paper defines the concept of economic security strategy as “acts that deviate from the rules of the market economy by using economic power as a source of power in the perception that the state or national economy is threatened.” The scope of Japan's economic security strategy is divided into five categories: first, economic statecraft; second, securing of safety and trust in “critical infra-structure”; third, reinforcement of supply chains in critical materials; fourth, public-private R&D cooperation of critical technologies; and fifthly, cooperation in strengthening global supply chains with “like-minded partners.”
Topic:
International Cooperation, Economy, Supply Chains, Economic Security, and Public-Private Partnership
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, and South Korea

80. Analysis of Chinese Response Patterns to Diplomatic Friction and Its Influencing Factors

Author:
Jai Chul Heo
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
As China grows into a global power, it is forming a closer relationship with the international community. In the process, the nation is experiencing increasing levels of diplomatic friction, such as confrontation and conflict with other countries, as well as cooperation. Accordingly, this study analyzes China's response to various forms of diplomatic friction, as Korea seeks an effective response to possible friction with China in the future. More specifically, China's response to diplomatic friction was examined through various cases, with the aim of categorizing China’s response measures based on these examples. In addition, this study aims to prepare for possible friction with China in the future by identifying factors that differ in China's response to diplomatic friction.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Sovereignty, Territorial Disputes, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South Korea