Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Asia Publication Year within 3 Years

111. South Korea: Caught in the Crosshairs of U.S.−China Competition Over Semiconductors

Author:
Paul Triolo
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper explores how countries with advanced semiconductor industries are caught in the middle of the growing U.S.-China competition in technology that is focused on advanced computing. Among them, South Korea and its national champions, Samsung and SK Hynix, have arguably incurred some of the most significant pressure. This paper explores how those firms have billions of dollars of sunk investment in China-based facilities producing cutting-edge memory, and the future of these facilities remains in doubt after a series of U.S. export control measures unleashed by the U.S. Commerce Department starting in October 2022. South Korean companies are also players in other parts of the global semiconductor supply chain, including semiconductor manufacturing tools, and China remains an important market for both components and electronic devices. This paper argues that each country caught between the United States and China in technology competition faces difficult trade-offs in determining how best to support its leading companies while navigating changing and often what is viewed as arbitrary decisions coming from Washington that have already significantly disrupted global supply chains. Finally, at the same time as U.S. export controls are having a major impact on the ability of South Korean companies to retain business operations and market access in China, major front-end manufacturers, particularly Samsung, are also looking to expand their operations in the United States and benefit from U.S. CHIPS Act funding. This paper argues that all of the above dynamics put South Korea in one of the more complex positions as the industry faces continued restructuring, buffeted by both export controls and industrial policies.
Topic:
Supply Chains, Economic Security, Semiconductors, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

112. The Raw Materials of Economic Security: South Korea’s Evolving Energy and Critical Minerals Policies in an Era of Disruption

Author:
James Bowen
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper argues that resource security is central to South Korea’s broader economic security and President Yoon Suk-yeol’s Strategy for a Free, Peaceful, and Prosperous Indo-Pacific Region. The paper contends that postwar Korea has maintained an energy and minerals-intensive economy despite domestic resource scarcity and import dependence. Recent disruptions have, however, threatened the resilience of this relationship. These disruptions include COVID-19, Russia’s war in Ukraine, the escalating climate change crisis and energy transition, and the geoeconomic and geopolitical erosion of the liberal order. Korea’s most important energy security priority is diversifying its energy mix towards cleaner energy—what this paper calls “green security.” This will be a difficult task given the intense national dependence on fossil fuels and policymakers’ desire to avoid disrupting Korea’s manufacturing-heavy, export-focused development model. Korea’s idiosyncratic decarbonization pathway, including a strong presence of hydrogen and, under Yoon, a downgrading of renewables in favor of nuclear, could provide additional challenges. Critical minerals are another rising resource security concern for Seoul. The major priority is to accelerate the development and diversification of international supply chains, particularly away from China. A major obstacle to progress is intense competition across the value chain, influenced by disparate economic and strategic priorities. The paper argues that Seoul must find ways to manage its energy and critical minerals security challenges in a way that is consistent with its preferred development model. The alternative is to accept a new equilibrium in which it has less domestic dependence on foreign resources and on resources-intensive economic activity in aggregate.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, Minerals, Economic Security, and Energy
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

113. Economic Security and U.S.-China Competition: The View from North Korea

Author:
Rachel Minyoung Lee
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper argues that while North Korea does not discuss “economic security” in domestic contexts or have an established definition of the term, it thoroughly understands that the economy and national security are inseparable. North Korea is essentially unaffected by the typical economic issues that many major economies are grappling with in relation to economic security, but like other countries, it has closely tracked economic security developments and deepening U.S.-China strategic competition for potential political fallout and what opportunities and challenges that may generate. The paper shows that U.S.-China strategic competition has offered unique opportunities to North Korea, including China’s cover against fresh and existing sanctions against North Korea, and economic assistance. Moreover, deteriorating U.S.-China ties provide Pyongyang extra space to consider and put into motion alternative foreign and economic policy paths, namely, shifting away from its three-decade policy of nonalignment with China and normalization of relations with the United States. Also, China appears to be a factor in North Korea’s shift to a more conservative economic policy. Despite the opportunities presented by the U.S.-China divide, however, North Korea is wary of the risks of dependence on China and has tried to build economic resilience at home, for example by launching a national campaign on domestic production and recycling. North Korea’s somewhat cooler handling of China and its proportionately warm treatment of Russia since the Armistice Day celebrations in July is a clear example of North Korea’s China dilemma. This is where North Korea’s recent strengthening of ties with Russia comes into the picture. The paper contends that it is hard to conclude at this point whether North Korea’s moves are aimed at short-term, tactical gains or are part of a longer-term, strategic calculus, but we can be certain of this: it has just as much to gain or lose as any other country affected by economic security and U.S.-China strategic competition, though not in the same ways as other countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Strategic Competition, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North Korea, and United States of America

114. Labour market inequality in two Asian giants Indonesia and India compared

Author:
Kunal Sen
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
We examine the nature of labour market inequality in Indonesia and India, using a common conceptual approach drawing from the job ladder framework. In the framework, we differentiate between self-employment and wage-informal and between formal, upper tier informal, and lower tier informal jobs. We find that both countries have a large proportion of workers in lower tier jobs, though the importance of wage-employment is larger in Indonesia. There are more workers in formal wage-employment in Indonesia than India. There are also sharp disparities in the earnings of workers in different tiers of the labour market in Indonesia and India, and there is limited evidence of convergence of the earnings of the lower tier informal workers to that of formal workers, at least for Indonesia. We also find that gender and educational level are important correlates of work status in both countries. Females and less educated workers occupy the lower tiers of the labour markets in the two countries.
Topic:
Employment, Inequality, Economy, Labor Market, and Informal Economy
Political Geography:
South Asia, Indonesia, India, and Asia

115. Faraway, so close: the impact of the Russia–Ukraine war on political violence in Asian countries

Author:
Michele Di Maio, Valerio Leone Sciabolazza, Patricia Justino, and Cecilia Nardi
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
We show that the Russia–Ukraine-war-induced changes in the international price of wheat affected political violence in Asia. Using data from 13 countries and more than four million cell-level observations, we show that a higher wheat price increases political violence in areas that are more suitable to produce that crop. We interpret this evidence as consistent with a rapacity effect being at play: the higher value of agricultural output increases the incentive to violently appropriate it. Our result is robust to a number of falsification and robustness tests. The effect is heterogeneous across countries and cell types: in line with our interpretation of the empirical findings, the effect is larger in countries that are net exporters of wheat and in cells that are rural. We also show that a higher price of wheat increases political violence more in countries that are low-income, fragile, and characterized by the presence of anti-government or terrorist groups, indicating that a higher value of crop production is more likely to fuel violence in areas that are poor or not politically stable.
Topic:
Political Violence, Instability, Russia-Ukraine War, and Wheat
Political Geography:
Asia

116. False promises: The authoritarian development models of China and Russia

Author:
Joseph Lemoine, Dan Negrea, Patrick Quirk, and Lauren Van Metre
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Are authoritarian regimes more successful than free countries in offering prosperity to their people? The answer is decidedly no, yet China and Russia actively advertise the “benefits” and “promise” of their authoritarian development model. Beijing and Moscow contend that their governance model—rooted in central control of political, social, and economic life—delivers for their people. The facts prove exactly the opposite and show that countries characterized by repression and concentrated control are far less successful across all metrics of human development than are free societies. That free societies are better for the people residing in them is not an ideological position; it is a statement of fact backed by substantial evidence, including, but not limited to, the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Indexes. This paper aims to showcase why and how the authoritarian development model is inferior to that of free societies. The first section documents democratic backsliding and the reversal of freedom’s fortunes. The second section presents data on how authoritarian regimes have failed to deliver prosperity for their people. The third section outlines how free societies have done the opposite—delivered sustained prosperity for their citizens. The final section offers the conclusion that authoritarian regimes, despite their claims, cannot deliver democratic progress or prosperity for society at large.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Diplomacy, Politics, Authoritarianism, Reform, and Democratic Transitions
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, and Asia

117. Requirements for nuclear deterrence and arms control in a two-nuclear-peer environment

Author:
Gregory Weaver and Amy Woolf
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
After decades of seeking to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international relations, the United States is now grappling with a global landscape marked by intense strategic competition and the growing salience of nuclear weapons—problems that will likely persist for years to come. Over the past year, Russia compounded its aggression in Ukraine with nuclear saber-rattling, modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces over the past decade. Furthermore, Russia’s possession of a substantial inventory of theater nuclear weapons continues to threaten regional deterrence. Meanwhile, in Asia, Beijing is pursuing an unprecedented surge in its nuclear capabilities. If current trends persist, China is projected to possess about 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035.1 While China was once viewed as a secondary nuclear power, its substantial investment in its nuclear arsenal—including the launch of a third ballistic missile early-warning satellite in 2022 and advancements in land-based ballistic missiles, aircraft, submarines, and hypersonic missiles—positions China to become a near-equal nuclear power in the coming decade. These trends mark a historic shift. For the first time in its history, the United States must face two near-peer nuclear competitors simultaneously. At the same time, Russia’s suspension of its compliance with the New START agreement in 2023 has significantly weakened the last strategic arms control framework established in the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. This move leaves scant provisions governing the future of nuclear capabilities among the United States and its adversaries. For over half a century, Washington and Moscow negotiated to establish treaties that imposed limits on their nuclear arsenals, aiming to manage their nuclear rivalry and mitigate the risk of nuclear conflict. This process served the national security interests of both sides by curbing weapons and activities that could jeopardize deterrence, safeguarding strategic stability, offering insights into nuclear capacities, and potentially steering military competition toward less perilous avenues. However, shifts in the global security landscape have altered this calculus. The Russian Federation, much like the Soviet Union before it, has insisted that future agreements factor in the nuclear capabilities of Britain and France. On the other hand, the United States now confronts a security environment featuring two nuclear-armed adversaries—Russia and China—whose forces will potentially pose significant threats to the United States and its allies. This evolving security landscape may prompt the United States to reevaluate its assessments of its deterrence and arms control requirements. But how should the United States approach this problem?
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

118. Geoeconomic fragmentation and net-zero targets

Author:
Shirin Hakim and Amin Mohseni-Cheraghlou
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The second half of the twentieth century experienced significant economic integration. International trade, cross-border migration, capital flows, and technological diffusion increased per capita incomes across countries and reduced global poverty. However, events such as the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, Brexit, and the COVID-19 pandemic—all against the backdrop of escalating great power rivalry and tensions between the United States and China—have demonstrated the rise of geoeconomic fragmentation (GEF). Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a growing numberof world leaders have addressed the impacts of GEF on global energy and agricultural markets. For one, higher and increasingly volatile food and energy prices have made it increasingly difficult for developing nations to prioritize environmental concerns and implement sustainable development initiatives.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, Economy, Economic Growth, Inclusion, Energy, Geoeconomics, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

119. The history of China’s future Lessons from the CIA

Author:
Dylan Levi King
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Predictions about China’s future made in the years since the Communist Party took power in 1949 have routinely cycled between two extremes of improbability: imminent collapse and indomitable ascent. These cycles came more slowly in the age before cable news and social media. The idea of the capture of the People’s Republic of China by Republic of China forces, or of the country tearing itself apart with political violence, held for years, before being wiped out by a popular impression of China’s meteoric rise and future economic domination.1 These cycles have now become supercharged for the attention economy. As one wave of forecasts of unstoppable lift-off and financial supremacy breaks, it is chased immediately by predictions of terminal economic dysfunction and social disintegration. For the expert, in danger of having their voice drowned out by amateur forecasters, it is difficult to inject the necessary rigour and nuance. For the layperson, it is hard to make any sense of the incessant deluge of contradictory and often extreme predictions. To wade into the forecast cycle is to risk being swept off one’s feet. To step away, and to simply avoid making any predictions is tempting, but it would be a grave error, given China’s economic gravity, immense population, status as a superpower and potential rival of NATO and allied countries. To get the future of the country wrong is to get the future of the planet wrong.
Topic:
History, Forecast, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Readiness
Political Geography:
China and Asia

120. NATO and a Taiwan contingency

Author:
James Lee
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
This paper Discusses the conditions under which a Taiwan contingency could trigger Article 5. Explains how individual NATO countries already play a role in Taiwan’s security. Outlines scenarios under which individual NATO countries could become directly involved in a Taiwan contingency.
Topic:
Security, NATO, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, and Asia