Introduction 

Contributors 

Chapter 1. Korea and East Asia in a Changing Economic Environment 
1. Asia’s Strategic Participation in the Group of 20 for Global Economic Governance Reform: From the Perspective of International Trade / Taeho Bark and Moonsung Kang
2. The Role of Korea and East Asia under the Changing Trade Environment / Yoocheul Song
3. Financial Regionalism in East Asia and its Efficacy as Financial Safety Nets / Young-Joon Park

Chapter 2. Korea and East Asia in a Changing Security Environment 
4. Global Responsibility and the Future of Security: America and Europe / Heinz Gärtner
5. North Korean Foreign Policy and its Domestic Connection: A Quantitative Analysis (1997-2010) / Rudiger Frank
6. Korea’s Evolving Strategic Thought Toward East Asia / Sung-Han Kim

Chapter 3. Regional and Global Development Issues and the Role of Korea 
7. Transnational Consumer Activism in International Development Cooperation / Baran Han
8. Current Status and Directions of Korean ODA / Insoo Kang
9. Korea’s ODA Policy Towards CLMIV: Trends and Prospects / Sung-Hoon Park and Jung-Ho Kim

This book is the outcome of the international conference “Korea and East Asia in a Changing Regional and Global Environment” held in Vienna, 28-29 April 2011. It covers three areas: changes in economic, security and development/ODA.

During the last decade China has boosted its international recognition as an emerging economic powerhouse. Deeply integrated into the global economy, China has risen to become an international power second only to the United States, and it is often regarded the eras of the US-China G2 has come. China has been pursuing bilateral and regional trade agreements with neighboring countries such as FTAs within ASEAN, along with its WTO entry in 2001 and globalization of the Chinese currency Yuan. Under the circumstance Japan’s international economic position has weakened in proportion to the increasing level of dependence on Chinese economy. Both Japanese public and private sectors recognize that economic cooperation with China has become one of the most important international agendas. This paper is aimed at introducing the structure of Japan-China trading system and analyzing Japan’s government policy along with corporations’ management strategies on Chinese market, providing a broad picture of growing economic ties between the two countries. This paper also derives several policy implications from the Japanese experiences on how Korea should build and implement its economic cooperation schemes with China.
Chapter two exhibits the rising of China in the global economy. We use indices such as GDP, trade volume, and foreign exchange reserves to review China’s burgeoning economy in detail. We also analyze China’s growing prominence in the world by taking a closer look into the globalization of the Chinese currency Yuan, bilateral FTA negotiations between East Asian countries, and regional financial cooperation in East Asia with the emergence of a new global financial governance system.
In chapter three, the structure of Japan-China trading system is analyzed in terms of trading items, process stages, and domestic market shares in China using indices such as Revealed Comparative Advantage Index, Trade Specification Index (TSI), and Marginal Intra-Industry Trade Index (MIIT). According to the study, it is clear that the Japan-China trading system has developed competitive yet complimentary interregional relations. Even the very competitive industries between Japan and China maintain their parts and materials sectors mutually beneficial cooperative relationships.
In chapter four, three points are examined in the perspective of Japanese firms’ business management activities in the Chinese market. First, we analyze investment strategies classified by period, industry, and region. Second, we conduct business performance assessment. Increasing sales and net profit figures shows that the business strategies of the Japanese firms are paying off in China. Finally, we analyze how Japanese firms handle China risk. Japanese firms intend to include East Asia as a whole on their standard of prospective investment area to reduce country risk via diversification while focusing on the Chinese market at the same time.
Chapter five discusses the economic cooperation policies of the Japanese government in specific areas. We look into policy evaluation and prospect in two sectors; Energy Efficiency and Environmental Industry, and Monetary and Financial Market.
Some implications for the Korean government and manufacturing firms are drawn from the paper in the above analysis. First, the Korean government needs to work out effective ways of carrying forward FTA negotiations with East Asian community. Under the circumstances of both Chinese and Japanese governments attempting to take the initiative in East Asian community, it is necessary for the Korean government to take into account the ongoing Korea-China bilateral FTA negotiations, the resumption of Korea-Japan FTA negotiations, the launch of joint Korea-China-Japan FTA, and RCEP all together.
Second, we could obtain from the Japanese experiences that the Korean government should come up with the corresponding strategy with the increasing level of Korea’s dependence on Chinese economy. We suggest four options; follow the changes in consumption patterns and demand prediction on Chinese domestic market; pay close attention to the new emerging markets in Asia to diversify export regions other than China; facilitate trade flows of parts and materials manufacturing sectors by reinforcing our industrial competitiveness; foster the business cooperation with the Chinese counterparts.
Third, in order to boost Korean firms’ investments in China, the Korean government needs to be alert to the changes in Chinese foreign investment policy. The Korean government should continuously provide updated information on Chinese government policy to Korean firms while discovering cooperation fields with China to pursue mutual advantages.
Finally, the Korean government needs to take support measures to certain domestic companies armed with high technological prowess but lack of overseas expansion strategy. In this respect, the government should further actively engage in the partnership and cooperation methods by inviting China experts on training sessions, conducting Korean experts’ seminars across China, holding private and public joint forums, and creating a fund development plan if necessary.

 

  A regional cooperation project centered on a long riverway passing through several nations, in addition to ensuring agreement between the nations involved, requires cooperation from the international community as a whole. This is because of potential friction that may inevitably arise during the course of such a project; types of friction that the states involved may not be able to resolve on their own. The Mekong’s upper reaches located in China, and five developing nations of Southeast Asia sharing its middle and downstream sections, and this has made mutual agreement quite difficult. But due to the high and vocal demand for development in the region, the actors have continued to make adjust their positions accordingly and cooperate with each other in spite of the difficulties involved in developing the Mekong region.
Support from multilateral development agencies and advanced nations have kept development moving forward up to this point, in terms of hardware infrastructure. Nations in the region have been active participants in the ADB-sponsored GMS program that began in 1992, which resulted in rapid build-up of physical infrastructure in the region. They are also cooperating  through the Mekong River Commission for projects to develop the Mekong’s water resources, and also bolster human capital in the region through the Mekong Institute. Connectivity between different regions around the Mekong have been strengthened recently, to promote the flow of people and materials that would expedite development in the region.
In October of 2011, Korea announced its intentions for earnest participation in the development of the Mekong region through the First Korea-Mekong Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. During the meeting, Korea pledged active consideration to increased connectivity with ASEAN, sustainable development, and human-oriented development in six major issue areas. Korea also announced it would pursue several pilot projects at the Second Korea-Mekong Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in July of 2012. At this point, Korea must formulate a basic strategy, direction of cooperation and measures for mid-to-long term cooperation in participating in the regional development.
In this regard, the question of how we should look at Korea’s participation in the development of the Mekong region is an important one. Countries comprising the region including Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar are already major cooperative partners receiving significant ODA from Korea. This means that if viewed solely from a bilateral standpoint, Korean involvement in these development efforts would create much overlap with pre-existing ODAs and would be, in essence, simple repetition.
However, the development of the Mekong region is actually a level-up, from bilateral to multilateral cooperation. The claim could be made that it constitutes Korea’s first multilateral development project after Korea became a member of the OECD DAC. It should be noted that the Korean government and the private sector will be involved together in various projects pursued by the Mekong regional bodies, which will serve to enhance Korea’s potential capacity with respect to development.
In order to ensure continued development, private sector participation is indispensable along with cooperation between governments, for which programs that enable public-private partnerships must be created. In the middle to long term, Korea should take a leading role in the Mekong development and come up with a system that would strengthen Korea’s capacity for multilateral development cooperation. Moreover, the strategy for development cooperation in Asia must be established from the larger framework of Korean development cooperation.
This research thus proposes the following measures for cooperation, with respect to creating overall plans for Korea in developing Mekong region.
First, the Korea-Mekong foreign ministers meeting must be elevated to summits, while simultaneously organizing economic ministers’ meetings as an intermediate phase to enhance economic cooperation. Following its foreign ministers’ meetings with the Mekong region countries in 2008, Japan subsequently  elevated it to a meeting of economic ministers and eventually summits, which could serve as a point of reference.
Second, an ODA base for multilateral cooperation must be established. The Mekong Sub-regional Development was made possible by converting previously bilateral cooperative relationships into a multilateral channels for cooperation. A firm foundation in the form of multilateral ODAs is vitally necessary for the continuation of such multilateral cooperation. The government-wide ASEAN Connectivity Task Force that was launched on September 2012 will focus on strengthening the connection between Korea and countries in the Mekong region. The Korean government ODA, set to be doubled by 2015 (relative to 2012), could be put to active use for the endeavor.
Third, all efforts should be expended for keeping the cooperation with donor states and regional cooperative organizations moving. The nature of each organization must be assessed and understood as well as the strategies of major donor states, to ensure amicable cooperation with those organizations/states. Korea should also seek to take leads in certain projects, circumstances permitting, and must not shrink from taking advantage of diverse, pre-existing networks. This would contribute immensely to enhancing Korea’s capacity for development in the long term.
Fourth, formulating an action plan for Korean engagement in development projects in the Mekong region is necessary. These engagements should take place separately in the six major areas of cooperation, instead of in an overarching manner. As these projects move forward, the so-called Korea Special Fund needs to be set up, so that Korea can evaluate, from the earliest stages (feasibility studies), how those funds should be spent. This allows an accumulation of data as well as provide opportunities for Korean corporations. Also, the participation of the private sector should be encouraged by establishing joint public-private programs, which would include public-private partnerships (PPPs) and other diverse formats. To further stimulate exchange in the private sector, the ‘Korea-Mekong Business Forum’ should continue to be organized. Last but not least, a system should be arranged in a manner that would bring in more small and mid-size businesses into the fold.

South Asia, one of the poorest regions of the world, is an important partner for Korea in development cooperation. While South Asia is home to 23% of the world’s population, per capita GDP of the region stood at a meager US$ 1,402 as of 2011. As such, the region has been receiving increasing amounts of official development assistance (ODA) from the international community including from Korea. Against this background, the present study seeks to identify priority sectors for Korea’s ODA to South Asia through quantitative analysis, and provide policy recommendations.

For purposes of the present study, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal which are Korea's main ODA recipients in the region are selected. The study then paired each South Asian country with a comparable country based on income levels and development stages for comparative analysis which, in turn, identified development needs of recipient countries and Korea’s aid capabilities. The report also identifies 9 priority sectors, i.e., institutions, health, infrastructure, market efficiency, financial market development, education and training, technology and ICT, the environment, and agriculture; based on the sectoral pillars of the Global Competitiveness Index and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) of the World Economic Forum, and agriculture-related data of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The report then ranks priority sectors while considering development needs of recipient countries and Korea’s aid capabilities. For example, sectors in which both the development needs of recipient countries and Korea’s aid capabilities are high are ranked “no. 1”, followed by sectors in which the development needs of recipient countries are high, but Korea’s aid capabilities are relatively low (no.2), and then sectors in which the development needs are low, yet Korea’s aid capabilities are strong (no.3). Lastly, sectors in which both the development needs and aid capabilities are low are placed in the “aid to be deferred” category. Priority sectors (no.1) identified for each country are as follows: infrastructure, education and training, health, technology and ICT for Pakistan; infrastructure, education and training, technology and ICT for Bangladesh; infrastructure, technology and ICT, education and training for Sri Lanka; and infrastructure, education and training and health for Nepal.

The present report goes on to suggest appropriate programs by country and sector by applying Korea’s ODA model to the aforementioned priority sectors. For Pakistan, the report recommends programs aimed at building power infrastructure, industrial clusters, and green energy for the infrastructure sector; for education and training, training programs for skilled labor, and vocational training; and for heath, modernization of public hospitals in focal areas of each region. For Bangladesh, it has been identified that for the infrastructure sector, programs for building industrial clusters, developing light and heavy industries, and power infrastructure could be explored; for the technology and ICT sector, installation of wired and wireless broadband, and nation-wide computer networks; and for education and training, training programs for skilled labor. For Sri Lanka, suggested programs include those relating to the building of free economic zones, green cities, and green industries in the infrastructure sector; and in technology and ICT, waste treatment and management, and green R&D infrastructure. For Nepal, the report recommends programs for building multi-purpose dams, airports, historical and cultural cities in the infrastructure sector; training programs for skilled labor in education and training; and the establishment of emergency medical care systems in the health sector.

The present study offers the following recommendations for Korea’s ODA policy towards South Asia. First, it recommends that Korea’s ODA towards South Asia be designed according to development stages and needs of each South Asian country. There are significant differences in terms of income level and development challenges among South Asian countries. For example, while Sri Lanka’s per capita GDP amounts to US$ 3,000, that of Nepal stands at a mere US$600. In addition, Korea’s ODA should take into account the growth potential of the region and countries with high growth rates. The report also recommends that emphasis should be laid on maximizing the effectiveness of ODA projects. To that end, efforts should be made to improve aid efficiency and sustainability. Also, there is a need to reduce fragmentation and increase linkages among ODA projects, and take a program-based approach. Moreover, it is essential to increase the ownership of recipient countries and improve harmonization with the international community.

Lastly, the study recommends that an aid consultative body for South Asia be established, focusing on Korea's main development partners in the region such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Such a mechanism would provide opportunities for Korea not only to participate in the SASEC (South Asia Sub-regional Economic Cooperation) program, a sub-regional initiative for development cooperation in South Asia, but also to make it possible for Korea to engage with India which does not receive ODA from Korea on development cooperation with other South Asian countries. 

 

The enormous potential for growth possessed by Southeast Asia, widely touted as the next rising market, has not gone unnoticed by the international community. Eleven states including ten member states of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) plus East Timor comprise the region; with much social, cultural, political, and economic diversity; as well as variations in sizes of their respective economies and levels of development. The region also faces challenges regarding development including income gaps, human development, industrialization, and expansion of infrastructure. There are movements to bolster efforts to achieve economic integration, with the goal of integrating the entire ASEAN community by 2015. There are also challenges most notably on the reduction of the development gap between CLMV countries and the others in ASEAN.
The Korean government has made reduction of poverty and development gaps in the region its priority, and has worked hard to resolve these issues through such channels as the New Asian Diplomacy, the ASEAN - Republic of Korea Commemorative Summit, and the Korea-Mekong Foreign Ministers Meeting. However, an effective utilization of limited developmental finances requires a systematic and comprehensive approach to aid; centered on ‘priority countries’ and areas for cooperation; in order to raise the effectiveness of Korean ODA policy. Accordingly, this study undertook a quantitative analysis of developmental needs of Southeast Asia, identifying areas with higher levels of need for development, and suggests measures for implementing programs for cooperation accordingly.
The five Southeast Asian countries analyzed in connection to development cooperation include two countries at the early stage of development (Cambodia, East Timor) and three middle-tier countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, and Philippines). These countries were designated as priority countries for development cooperation, all selected on the basis of their high potential for economic growth and developmental needs. Important indicators such as the Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum, the Environmental Performance Index, and the FAO Agricultural Index were utilized in calculating the development gap between the subject countries and states in higher levels of development. The calculated results were then used to evaluate the needs of the recipient countries and Korea's aid capacity.
The analysis of development needs by country using the above framework revealed that, any differences between the subject countries were slight. Instead, the subject countries were in great need of development in economic infrastructure, education/training, technology and ICT. This had a lot to do with the fact that most pressing need for development needed was in infrastructure such as transportation, energy,  and communication, which is a common theme that shows up regarding developing countries. Concomitantly, this means that economic infrastructure should be given precedence in Korea's development projects in the region.
Yet construction-heavy projects undertaken at the request of recipient states often produces negative effects that must be shored up by increasing the number of participants and scope of aid; through action such as integration of credits/grants and public-private partnerships. Assistance in areas where Korea possesses a comparative advantage as education/training, technology and ICT; should be given serious consideration. Korea could also take advantage of its experience in green growth and green technologies, by providing assistance in climate control and environmental protection. In addition, with agriculture being an area where Korea was found to have a great deal of aid capacity, it could play a very significant  role in boosting agricultural production in Southeast Asian countries.
This paper is largely based on the quantitative analysis of the countries and areas of assistance; and focuses on Korean assistance toward Southeast Asia in four areas including agriculture/rural development, infrastructure, education, and climate change/environment.
In agriculture and rural development, Korea should formulate a package program for cooperation with strong links between different projects, within a framework of an overall, mid-to-long-term rural development plan. It should be based on Korea's advanced agricultural technology and development experience and with active utilization of regional cooperative bodies in Southeast Asia.
Second, the demand for develop was found to be the highest in infrastructure and regional development, which would require building an operational plan based on strategic packaging of projects. This necessitates policy approach that incorporates dialogue, loans, technology cooperation, private sector knowhow and utilization of funds; and creates an urgent need for a feasibility study tailored to EDCF projects and a system for follow-up management.
Third, since human resource development has been one of great issues for achieving ASEAN community by 2015, Korea can contribute to making up for what ASEAN lacks such as training skilled labors and upgrading education system, which should be aligned with those by other international donors.
Fourth, climate change/environment represent an area where Korean technology and experience can come into active play. This can be put to good use in increasing assistance to Southeast Asian countries through  programs in environmental protection/climate change suited to their respective levels of development.
This study is a significant one in that it was able to identify the main areas for development cooperation by analyzing quantitatively the economic circumstances and development gaps in Southeast Asia  It also revealed the inability of quantitative analysis to reflect the characteristics of each country and provide a detailed description of the development capacity of recipient states. The challenge for the future will include building a more systematic analytical model by factoring in analysis of Korea's comparative advantages that can contribute to the reduction of development gaps with respect to the recipient states.

 

In recent years, the relatively high incomes achieved by countries in Latin America have ruled them out as partners for development cooperation. However, 30% of its population still lives under the poverty level, while both income disparity and rural-urban disparity remain high, which point to a high demand for development cooperation. Therefore this study conducted a quantitative analysis to identify priority sectors and suggest sectoral plans for the official development aid (ODA) toward Latin American countries.
This study is composed of six chapters. Following the introductory chapter, chapter two analyzes the environment for development cooperation of the Latin American region. For more effective analysis, we take into consideration the region's political and economic situation, progress in MDG(Millenium Development Goals) and related achievements, and possible benefits for the region. Lastly, based on this analysis, environment of the development cooperation of the region.
In chapter three is a quantitative analysis of the aid demand of the region. Out of thirty-three Latin American countries, seven countries are selected as priority countries for cooperation including El Salvador, Honduras, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia. Among these seven countries, four of them(El Salvador, Honduras, Paraguay, Bolivia) are lower-middle income countries and the other three countries(Ecuador, Peru, Colombia) belong to upper-middle income category. Major development indicators of the seven countries are compared with those of higher-income countries and this gap is defined as aid demand. Also the indicator gap between Korea and the said countries are accounted for in order to assess the feasibility of the development aid. Based on these demands and  feasibility, priority sectors selected are infrastructure, environment, education and ICT. Among these four sectors, sectoral analysis is conducted in the following chapter for three sectors with the exception of infrastructure, as the infrastructure sector requires huge capital and it is sometimes not appropriate for the development aid as it involves complex economic interests. In education, vocational training is selected as the priority sector as demand for this sector is relatively high within the region.
In chapter four, three priority sectors out of the four mentioned in chapter three were examined in detail in terms of its cooperation status and its implications. In particular, this chapter probes the national development plans of the seven countries in order to examine their demand for development cooperation in environment, vocational training, and ICT sector and thereby proposes some policy implications for Korea.
Chapter five scrutinizes the major projects that Korea worked on in the priority sectors, including performance and the problems.
Finally, chapter six makes some suggestions in environment, vocational training, and ICT sectors in order to promote development cooperation. In the environmental sector: ① enhancement of the country's image in environment ODA ② educational programs for environment protection and the diversification of supporting areas ③ expansion of cooperation with the regional development banks ④ triangular cooperation are suggested. As for the vocational training sector: ① more active vocational training in the donor country's strategic industries ② foundation of Korea-Chile industrial technology training center ③ empowerment of the teachers in vocational training ④ cooperation between companies and aid agencies ⑤ collaboration with the regional development banks of the region are suggested. Lastly, in the ICT sector: ① foundation of Korea-Latin America ICT cooperation forum and fund raising ② establishment of ICT R&D Think Tank Initiative in Latin America ③ Korea-Latin America industrial cooperation on ICT Convergence ④ taking the initiative in the Forum for East Asia-Latin American Cooperation (FEALAC) ICT cooperation program are proposed.

 

 

This study explores the formation and the characteristics of Latin American elites focusing on Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Chile. The reason why these four countries have been chosen for the study is not because they represent the region but because they are relatively the most significant countries in terms of their relation with Korea.  Therefore, what we found in this study regarding the formation and the characteristics of the elites are not duplicable to the other Latin American countries. Considering the importance of the topic as well as the diverse context of Latin America, the further research on elites in other Latin American countries will be important to foster more complex and comprehensive understanding of the elites in Latin America.
This study does not aim at establishing a new theory on Latin American elites. Rather, it practically approaches to the subject of elites in order to contribute to better relations between Latin America and Korea since the elites are such an important social actors. As a result, this study turns out to differ from recent development of elite studies literature which focuses on analyzing the impact of conflicts or cooperation among the elites on democratization process. 
Each case study shares the following structure. First, it analyzes the elite formation process. In order to comprehend the characteristics of the elites, the elite formation process is an important element to look at. The elite formation process is not just a simple historical fact yet it proves to determine the characteristics of today’s elites. Various historical factors such as the strength of colonial power, the role of local elites in independence, the existence of powerful regional elites in the process of nation building, the power of rural elites, the degree of diversification of elites result in different characteristics of elites in each country. Therefore, looking at the elite formation with emphasis on significant historical events, we tried to deepen our understanding of the characteristics of elites in each case. 
Second, we examine various sectors of the elite structure. As mentioned before, due to different historical formation, different sector of the elite in each country has different level of power. For example, in Chile and Peru, economic elites have stronger power among others, while political elites are relatively more predominant in Mexico and Brazil. Furthermore, when Mexico and Brazil, whose size  is rather big among Latin American countries, tend to have stronger local elites such as governors, relatively smaller countries in this study such as Peru and Chile turn out to form stronger elite concentration around each capital, Lima and Santiago, respectively. In Peru, the military elite maintains its power to some extent while in Mexico the military does not form a part of power elite because of institutionalization of social conflicts. Chile, which appears to have a strongly unified elites, tends to have powerful media elites which play a major role in national politics with its economic as well as political power. However, Peruvian as well as Brazilian media did not grow into such power. In case of religious elites, Peru and Chile where the society in general is socially conservative posses relatively more powerful religious elites than Mexico and Brazil.
Such diversity in Latin American elites led us to focus this study on specific elite groups depending on each country’s context instead of researching same groups in each case. Political elites and economic elites were commonly discussed in each case while military elites, media elites and religious elites were chosen depending on its significance in the case. This approach is appropriate for the study because its purpose is to explore the characteristics of those who have power in the policy making process from power elite perspective.
Finally, this study surveys how elites act to realize their interests. We analyzed Chilean case, which seems to have unified elites, in terms of how the unity could be maintains by looking at their recruiting methods, their religious conservatism, and their strategy of alliance. In Peruvian case, this study scrutinizes the power relations among principal elite groups such as economic elites, political elites and military elites. In addition, the interactions among the elites were carefully analyzed in order to verify their style of governing. Meanwhile, Brazilian case, where we can find rather more diversified elites, gave us insights on how power has been shared among different sectors of elites. Mexico, which also appears to have a more diversified elites, elucidates how different sectors of elites could acquire governance by internal integration.
As a result, this study contributes to more comprehensive understanding of Latin American elites by looking at their historical formation process, their characteristics as well as current status of their power structure. Therefore, this study offers a base for future researches on Latin American elites as well as politics of the region in general.  It also provides a practical knowledge on the elites in Latin America who play a significant role in the relation between Korea and Latin America. 

The purpose of this study is to analyze the investment environment of Brazil's northeast region which has received a great deal of attention recently for its potential. Suggestions are made for Korean companies seeking to expand investment.

This report consists of six chapters as follows:
The study begins with an introductory chapter, followed by chapter two that provides an outline of the economy of the northeast region of Brazil from four different perspectives: geographic, economic, industrial and trade structure.
In chapter three, the investment environment of the region is closely analyzed, with focus on the government's investment promotion policy and its system, labor market, infrastructure, and market potential.
Chapter four looks into the current situation regarding the expansion of foreign companies into this region and their strategy. In particular, companies from China, Japan, and France are closely examined; eliciting implications for Korean companies.
Chapter five introduces promising businesses with good prospects for success. These businesses were discovered after an in-depth analysis of the diverse development plans for the region, such as the Regional Development Plan for the Northeast Region (PRDN), PAC-2(Growth Acceleration Program 2), and those plans related to the 2014 World Cup.
Lastly, in chapter six, analyses in previous chapters are combined and provides suggestions for Korean companies seeking to make inroads into Brazil's northeast region. This chapter develops a SWOT analysis on the investment environment of this region after examining the state of Korean investment in Brazil and investor performance. Some practical measures are also suggested at the corporate and government level.
Suggestions at the corporate level include: ① entry strategy based on classification of investment purposes ② active participation in government projects ③ diversification of investment regions ④ expansion strategy tailored to regional characteristics and ⑤ collaboration with local companies. As for suggestions at the government level, they include: ① enhancement of institutional cooperation with local governments ② expansion of Knowledge Sharing Programs (KSP) ③ establishment of the Korea-Brazil economic cooperation center ④creation of exclusive industrial complex for Korean companies.

This study analyzes Myanmar’s external economic relations that has been changing rapidly since the new government came into power in 2011. It specifically considers two topics. The first is the easing of Western sanctions on Myanmar and the second examines how major countries have responded to Myanmar’s unexpectedeconomic and political reforms. By systematically analyzing the fast-changing external economic environment of Myanmar, a country now considered the last frontier of Asia, this study aims to provide detailed information and policy implications on Myanmar’s transition.
US sanctions on Myanmar have been eased substantially as a response to Myanmar’s political liberalization and as an inducement for further reform. Sanctions in most sectors, except GSP withdrawal and arms embargo, have been eased or suspended to a great extent. Yet the current easing of sanctions is the result of presidential waivers all basic legislations on sanctions on Myanmar remain intact. Therefore, there is a technical possibility that sanctions can be swiftly restored should reforms in Myanmar backslide or a major political catastrophe occurs. The US used to maintain a comprehensive sanctions regime on Myanmar but now it is moving toward a targeted sanctions regime based on Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list maintained by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. As SDN is emerging as an important framework for economic cooperation with Myanmar, governments and businesses will need serious risk assessments when engaging in bilateral cooperation or business transactions involving the country. The suspension of the import ban and investment restrictions by the US presents an unprecedented economic opportunity for Myanmar and foreign investors, but the nuances and technical details of the new sanctions regime call for attention to its remaining restrictions and related business risks. For its part, EU has suspended all the sanctions except the arms embargo on Myanmar and offered development assistance with focus on health, education and peace.
Although the dominant position of China in Myanmar has been challenged, China is and will continue to be one of its most important trade partners, investors and aid donors. China is expected to continue its numerous infrastructure and development projects across the country although its modus operandi will have to adapt to new political sensitivities of the Myanmar government as well as public scrutiny. It will also have to face international competitionin natural resource development, infrastructural development, foreign aid, and market share for consumer goods. Japan, on the other, has been engaging Myanmar most aggressively since the reform, with offers of sizable debt relief and foreign aid. It has already achieved early successes in securing infrastructure development deals with Myanmar and is emerging as one of the most significant donors for the country. Moving to ASEAN countries, neighboring Thailand has been aggressively pursuing joint development projects and investment with Myanmar along its border. Singapore, Myanmar’s important regional ally, has proposed government capacity and human capital development as its area of specialization for assistance.
Korean government and businesses need to adapt to the new US sanctions regime. It also needs to find ways to partner with China and Japan in large-scale infrastructure development projects and in the energy sector. For development assistance, Korea will need to identify sectors and methods for concentration to best serve Myanmar’s pressing development goals while not straining Myanmar’s scarce human and government resources.

Mozambique is one of the fastest growing country in Africa, with the average annual growth rate of 7.7% since 2000. The country’s recent economic growth has mainly been fueled by the improvement in political stability and the discovery of vast reservoirs of mineral resources, which in turn have attracted a huge influx of foreign investment and thus developed extractive industries.
However, Mozambique’s gross domestic product per capita ($586 in 2011) is low and poverty rates remain still high (54.7% in 2009). The country also suffers from the insufficient infrastructure and low agricultural productivity. The Mozambican government has recently undertaken a number of infrastructure projects including power plant and power grid construction, in order to generate sufficient electricity not only for its homeland but also for its neighbours (Southern African Power Pool). With regard to agricultural development, the government has intensively focused on improving extension service, agricultural finance support facilities, and rural infrastructure so as to increase agricultural productivity. 
Given the above, this study is initiated by the idea that there would be great potential for industrial cooperation between Korea and Mozambique in filling Mozambique’s energy and food gap to the extent that Korea has extensive experience in building electric power infrastructure and increasing agricultural productivity. Hence, the purpose of this study is to analyze Mozambique’s two major industries - electric power and agribusiness industries, and to provide suggestions for Korean investors on doing business in Mozambique. The suggestions for strengthening bilateral industrial cooperation in these sectors are as follows.
First, harnessing Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement would be an option for Korean investors since Mozambique’s agribusiness is one of the major sectors to promote bilateral cooperation, selected by the Korean government. Second, forming consortium with multinational firms might allow Korean investors to share the burden and risk while compensating for their lack of capital and technology. Finally, this study concludes by suggesting promising sub-sectors of the industries: construction of power plant and power grid as well as agricultural market entry with the specialization in high value-added rice and poultry products.