Asia-Pacific Global Logo
Tagline - Opportunity begins now.
Map of NE Asia
    • Geo-Politcal Analysis
      Business Development
      Risk Management
      Emerging Techologies
      Legal
      Negotiations
  • Posts Tagged ‘Park Geun-hye’

    South Korea’s Deregulation Decision: If You Love Creativity, Set the Economy Free [Asia-Pacific Global Research Group]

    March 22nd, 2014  by  Asia-Pacific Global Research Group - Jasper Kim

    3175_2
     
    SEOUL, March 20 (as reported by Yonhap News) — President Park Geun-hye held a nationally televised meeting with regulators and businesses Thursday in a highly symbolic show of determination to undo non-essential regulations she has denounced as “cancer” that’s killing South Korea’s economy.
     
    Park has made deregulation the most important point in her drive to reinvigorate Asia’s fourth-largest economy under her three-year economic innovation plan. The plan calls for raising South Korea’s potential growth rate to around 4 percent and the per capita national income to more than US$30,000 by 2017.
     
    Deregulation is also important in realizing Park’s “creative economy” vision that calls for boosting the economy by turning creative ideas into real businesses through science and technology and information technology.
     
    Park has repeatedly stressed the importance of deregulation and how much she is committed to it, with the language and tone in her appeals growing increasingly stronger in a sign of frustration she feels about the lack of progress and the difficulty getting bureaucrats to remove regulations.
     
    During the meeting, the government reported that it will cut the total number of registered regulations on business activity to 80 percent of the current level by 2016. That translates into the removal of 2,200 regulations and a drop in the total from 15,269 to 13,069.
     
    The government also reported it will adopt Britain’s “regulation cap” system to keep steady the total cost of regulations borne by businesses and the public. The system calls for removing old regulations to make room for new ones. British Ambassador Scott Wightman has also been invited to speak at the meeting about the country’s “regulation cap” system that calls for keeping the total number of regulations steady by making it mandatory to remove old regulations in order to introduce new ones, officials said.
     
    It will first be tested by seven ministries, including the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, starting July, before being expanded across the government starting in January next year.
     
    ASIA-PACIFIC GLOBAL RESEARCH GROUP’S IN-HOUSE VIEW:
     
    We absolutely believe in the principles of principled deregulation for the South Korean economy. This is especially the case in the 21st century, as Asia’s fourth largest economy tries to “free the minds” of its untapped youth and next-generation creative talent. Currently, the economy is overly top-heavy as reflected in an industrial infrastructure that is heavily producer and export-driven. Today, most of South Korea’s GDP is export-dependent. This is good when South Korean exports are in demand by overseas markets, but not so good when such demand falters for endogenous or exogenous factors.
     
    We commend President Park Geun-hye’s latest public efforts to deregulate. Hopefully, such governmental will not turn into another added and ironic regulatory layer in and of itself to get the mission accomplished.
     
    In addition to such government-led deregulatory efforts by the Park administration, why not try an alternative approach?
     
    Why not set out the principles of deregulation in the form of “negative” and “positive” rights?
     
    this would be an elegant, efficient, and effective step forward, without requiring overly burdensome legislative efforts.
     
    To illustrate, during the formation of the U.S. (the world’s oldest democracy), The Declaration of Independence calls for the British government to end the “long train of abuses and usurpations” of “certain unalienable Rights,” specifically “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The authors and signers of the Declaration did not desire for government to provide “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, but rather they expected government to protect their pre-existing rights which were “endowed by their Creator.”
     
    The unalienable rights in the Declaration and many found among the first amendments to the Constitution are considered “negative rights.” A “negative right” restrains other persons or governments by limiting their actions toward or against the right holder. In other words, it enables the right holder to be left alone in certain areas. For example, the right to be secure in one’s home requires that others refrain from trespassing or entering without permission.
     
    On the other hand, many claims of rights emerging since America’s founding, such as rights to healthcare, housing, or standards of living, are considered “positive rights.” These positive rights essentially provide the right holder with a claim against another person or the state for some good, service, or treatment. Thus, a right to housing obligates someone – presumably the state – to provide the right holder with housing, typically via resources obtained from others.
     
    The words “negative” and “positive” reflect the nature of the right itself.
     
    Applying “negative” and “positive” rights, entities in the South Korean marketplace (including SMEs and start-ups) could be protected under both a “negative” right (i.e., freedom from overly burdensome regulatory processes; specifics could be listed instead) as well as certain “positive” rights (e.g., freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness through the pursuit of commercial activities; this is just a broad case in which specifics could instead be provided by the state).
     
    After all, everything else being equal, wouldn’t we want to “let a thousand start-ups and new enterprises bloom” in South Korea and elsewhere with less (rather than more) regulation?

     
    If you are interested in how Asia-Pacific Global Research Group can help your organization, CONTACT US HERE.
     

    South Korea’s “creative economy” – 6 strategies

    February 12th, 2014  by  Asia-Pacific Global Research Group - Jasper Kim

    south-korea-welcomes-bill-gates-push-creative-economy-initiative
     
    South Korean President Park Geun Hye’s agenda for the economy’s second miracle on the Han River is under the title of “the plan for Creative Economy-Measures to Create the Ecosystem for Creative Economy.”
     
    But what does “creative economy” mean exactly? Now that the Korean president has had time to adjust and initiate her policies, we begin to see what the policy mantra of “creative economy” means as a matter of policy:
     
    The post-Great Recession global economy has witnessed a shift in focus of value creation to the “innovative technology and creative idea (creative economy)” away from labor and capital, reflecting the 20th century industrial economic ecosystem–towards knowledge and information technology, reflecting a 21st century economic ecosystem and knowledge-based economy.
     
    The “creative economy” policy hopes to leverage the country’s cutting-edge technology, culture, and art. The policy’s focus has been placed on supporting and expanding small-to-medium businesses that can lead to job creation up the value chain. South Korea also mapped out the strategy (creative economy plan) for a unique and value-added creative economy that fully leverages its comparative advantage in its ICT capabilities towards creativity-driven growth, moving beyond the catch-up growth strategy based on imitation and application. The creative economy economic policy initiative presents the vision and objectives of the so-called creative economy. Putting together and integrating the tasks of several government ministries, related tasks have been identified jointly by such respective government ministries since late March 2013. The opinions of the various ministries were accepted and reflected in the administration’s creative economy plan.
     
    Creative Economy – Policy Summary:
    ◎ Presentation of 3 major goals, 6 strategies
    The creative economy plan envisions three goals to create an economic ecosystem for fostering a creative economy in a new era of hope and well-being of the general public:
    ▲ Creation of new jobs and market through creativity and innovation
    ▲ Strengthening the global leadership of the nation’s creative economy with other global economies
    ▲ Respecting creativity and promoting creativity within society
     
    The 6 strategies are as follows:
    ▲ Creating an economic ecosystem where creativity is fairly rewarded where business startups are easier (Strategy 1)
    ▲ Promoting venture capital firms and small-to-medium businesses playing a leading role in the creative economy and make inroads into global markets (strategy 2)
    ▲ Creating the growth engine for pioneering new industry and markets (strategy 3)
    ▲ Fostering the global creative human capital talent who have the vision and wherewithal to become a vital part of the creative economy (strategy 4)
    ▲ Expanding the nation’s science technology and ICT innovation capabilities, which lay the foundation for the creative economy (strategy 5)
    ▲ Initiating the creative economic culture that promotes the involvement of both government and people (strategy 6)

     
     
    If you are interested in how Asia-Pacific Global Research Group can help your organization, CONTACT US HERE.
     

    Pres. Park Geun-hye’s “Korea brand diplomacy”: takeaways from her US working trip

    May 16th, 2013  by  Asia-Pacific Global Research Group - Jasper Kim

    This blog is based on a full op-ed in the Global Times (China), which can be viewed in its entirety HERE:

     
    The US and South Korea reaffirmed their 60-year alliance in Washington during South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s first visit to the US since being elected to the Blue House.
     
    The main objective of both presidents was to show unity over trade and security issues for the two nations. Park was also accompanied by one of the largest economic entourages in recent memory, with more than 50 high-profile and senior representatives from South Korea’s business sector accompanying her. Such figures included some of the heads of South Korea’s largest conglomerates, including Samsung, LG, and Hyundai. They were there to pitch the mantra that South Korea is a safe place for foreign direct investment.
     
    Park’s economic entourage also served as a strong signal of how importantly South Korean firms value the US marketplace.
     
    The US is still one of South Korea’s largest export markets. Thus, Park attempted to strategically disentangle North Korea’s recent provocative actions and threats from South Korea’s economic interests during her trip. Her “Korea brand diplomacy” strategy was a purposeful and forceful counter-response to notions that a “Korean discount” is needed for Korean assets due to North Korea.
     
    In the current post-crisis slow growth era, both Park and Obama share a vested interest in furthering the alliance, especially since increased trade opportunities would be more than welcome to spur the economic growth of both countries. Perhaps it is for this reason that Park and her economic entourage received such a warm welcome by Obama and the US Congress.
     
    After all, South Korea represents a model state of a liberal democracy in a key region, Northeast Asia, that not only has produced a vibrant export-led economy, but also represents an economy that will hopefully be increasingly open to US imports of goods and services.
     

     

     

    South Korea’s first female president, Park Geun-hye: 4 Factors

    December 20th, 2012  by  Asia-Pacific Global Research Group - Jasper Kim

    1. Foreign Affairs Policies and Impact:
     
    President Park Geun-hye’s first post-election policy speech this morning focused on North Korea. In effect, her North Korean policy will be one of “semi-Sunshine Policy,” or put another way, “Sunshine Policy lite.” That is, her administration will not completely shun the North, nor will it completely try to embrace the North. Rather, Park’s policy will be one of moderation, most likely with a moderate left pivot. The spirit of such policy will be economic aid and other incentives in a “something for something” quid pro quo manner, rather than “something for nothing” transactions in the form of purely ceremonial and costly summit meetings. The Park administration believes the Sunshine Policy was relatively ineffective in bringing about sustainable positive results, especially in light of the need to boost South Korea’s own economy and people in a post-subprime crisis recovery period.
     
    2. Economic Policies and Impact:
     
    President Park Geun-hye’s economic policies will focus on widening the country’s “social safety net” while rolling out policies related to “economic democratization.” Regarding the social safety net issue, this will include such policy platforms as increasing job security, expanding affordable housing options, boosting job security (especially for non-permanent contract employees), and debt forgiveness. Regarding economic democratization issues, this will include working “with” (rather than against) the nation’s large family-owned conglomerates–known as “chaebol”–relating to cross-share holdings and forging greater cooperation with SMEs. Thus, shareholders of such firms as Samsung, LG, SK, and Hyundai, should be relatively relieved with Park’s election, rather than Moon’s, given the more friendly (or at the very least, relatively less hostile) policy stance towards the chaebol.
     
    At the same time, Park Geun-hye understands that the Korean economy is in essence a “one pillar” economy that is highly (some would say, overly-) dependent on exports. In total, 48% of South Korea’s GDP depends on its exports (compared to 28% and 18% for China and Japan, respectively). The proffered policy solution is the fostering of a second economic pillar in the form of a “creative economy”–basically the nation’s IT and biotech industries–that may better cater to South Korea’s innate competitive advantages in such areas. This will also help create jobs and boost productivity and production by SMEs, which account for up to 94% of South Korea’s total labor force (compared to just 6% by the largest chaebol).
     
    3. The Female Factor:
     
    Will Park’s gender as South Korea’s first female president play a key role? The answer is yes and no. Yes, in terms of creating a demonstration effect for half of the nation’s population. This is especially notable given that South Korea has one of the lowest female workforce participation rates among OECD member countries. In essence, although many Korean women begin to work in their 20s, a disproportionately large number of women drop out of the workforce, many due to societal pressure to get married and raise, not just bear, children, to get the family’s children into “top schools” (stemming in part from traditional Confucian/Korean values and norms). This links to many other related issues, such as the lack of day care facilities and hyper competition within the country’s educational landscape (highly dependent on attending private learning institutes outside of normal school hours).
     
    No, in the sense that president-elect Park never made her gender–being a woman–a primary campaign issue. In part, this is due to the fact that Park could not have brought the “female factor” issue to the forefront since most of her suppot base comes from “conservative” voters, e.g., older Korean males. Thus, South Korea is entering into a “post-patriarchal” political era, in which one’s gender to assume the highest office in the land–the presidency and the Blue House–does not have to be linked to gender, similar to what was seen with former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher (who was cited as a benchmark by candidate Park) and current German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
     
    4. Challenges:
     
    Park won the presidency by a relatively small margin of approximately 51% to 48%. This is in contrast to the previous presidential cycle, in which the presidency was secured by a 20+% margin of victory by Lee Myung-bak. Thus, the challenge going forward will be: how to garner the support of the Korean public when just as many voters were with you as against you? Many skeptics must also be convinced that Park Geun-hye will be different enough from her father, former president Park Chung-hee, which has been a constant looming issue not just throughout Park as a political candidate, but throughout her life before seeking public office. If Park can prove to be an acute listener, who can then integrate the interests of both her supporters and non-supporters alike, her initial honeymoon period in the Blue House stands a reasonable chance of relative success.
      
    For an interview clip with National Public Radio (NPR) on president-elect Park Geun-hye’s formative years, featuring Jasper Kim of Asia-Pacific Global Research Group, click HERE


    For a Bloomberg news article relating to Park and chaebols, quoting Jasper Kim, click HERE.

    ; ; 
    For a Bloomberg TV interview clip by Jasper Kim, click HERE OR VIEW BELOW.
     

     
    For an Al-Jazeera English TV interview clip, CLICK HERE OR VIEW BELOW. 

      
    For an interview clip as part of a larger CNBC TV segment aired today, see below (clip begins from about the 1 minute mark):