본문으로 바로가기

Working Papers

Publications

  • 중국 스마트시티 추진현황 및 진출전략 연구: 슝안신구 및 톈진에코시티 사례를 중심으..

    Date 2021.12.30

    Economic development, Economic relations

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 중국의 국정운영에 관한 연구: 해양 행정 및 정책을 중심으로

    Date 2021.12.30

    Chinese politics, Chinese social structure China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 중국의 대학 인공지능 교육과 창쿼(創客) 창업 정책 연구

    Date 2021.12.30

    Chinese education China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 지역별 중장기 통상전략 및 대외경제 협력 방안
    Korea’s Medium- and Long-Term Trade Strategies by Region and International Economic Cooperation Plans

       This study seeks to identify Korea’s cooperation directions with major regions and present action plans to implement them in five medium-to long-term trade issues: global supply chains, digital trade, climate change,..

    June Dong Kim et al. Date 2021.12.31

    Economic cooperation, Trade policy

    Download

    Content

    닫기
    Summary
       This study seeks to identify Korea’s cooperation directions with major regions and present action plans to implement them in five medium-to long-term trade issues: global supply chains, digital trade, climate change, health, and development cooperation.
       In the area of global supply chains, Korea and the U.S. could promote predictability and sustainability through periodic exchanges of information between the respective control towers of supply chains in the two countries, and the utilization of various consultative bodies composed of diverse agents related to supply chains. In the long-term perspective, we need to implement exchange programs of personnel and joint R&D programs in the areas of advanced technologies of the two countries in order to cultivate talented persons in the key industries.
       The EU and Korea could reinforce the connectivity of their supply chains through cooperation in the areas of technology and production in such strategic industries as telecommunication infrastructure. In addition, when considering the global expansion of low-carbon economy initiatives, Korea needs to closely cooperate with the EU, which is preemptively adjusting its supply chains under a green economy concept.
       With regard to China, it is anticipated that Korea will have no choice but to cooperate in areas where China and the U.S. share values, or in areas where the U.S. does not show interest in, for a considerable period of time. More specifically, cooperation can be possible in the areas of green industries, the health sector, and those with matured technology. Regionally, Korea needs to pursue cooperation with China in supply chains in third countries, rather than within China.
       In the New Southern Region, above all, Korea should pursue diversification of supply chains within the ASEAN region by utilizing changes in the trade and investment environment due to the RCEP, the CPTPP, and the ASEAN Economic Community. Korea also needs to upgrade its CEPA with India to secure smooth movement of intermediate goods between Korea and India. Additionally, Korea needs to expand cooperation with India utilizing the EDCF, particularly in light of the demand within India to establish various infrastructure such as renewable energy and roads.
       In the area of digital trade, two directions of cooperation with key countries and regions can be outlined as follows. First, Korea should strengthen medium-to long-term cooperation with leading economies such as the U.S. and the EU in digital infrastructure, digital technology, digital technological standards, and data regulation. Second, in places where need for digital infrastructure is increasing, such as China, the New Southern Region, and Africa, unique and specialized digital trade policies should be established.
       To be more specific, in order to strengthen cooperation with the U.S. in digital technology, Korea needs to encourage its domestic firms to join in the O-RAN Alliance. Furthermore, in order to foster technological cooperation in the field of AI, Korea should facilitate discussions about the development of international AI standards through the already existing Joint Committee on Science and Technology Cooperation between Korea and the U.S. Korea also needs to begin discussions to maintain technical standards cooperation by forming a Korea-EU Committee on digital technology like Trade and Technology Council between the U.S. and the EU. In terms of data regulation, Korea must take a proactive role together with the U.S. in WTO e-commerce talks. This study also suggests that the e-commerce chapter that was not addressed during the negotiation of the KORUS FTA amendment should be upgraded in the near future. Efforts will also be vital to keep complying with the EU’s GDPR requirements.
       Regarding digital infrastructure cooperation with major countries and regions such as China, the New Southern Region, and Africa, Korea should undertake action plans in conjunction with domestic policies such as K-semiconductor strategies and materials, components, and equipment strategies. Meanwhile, it is critical to develop a venue to discuss digital technology and data regulatory cooperation with China and the New Southern Region. Korea could benchmark the cooperation in the area of standards between Japan and China in 2019. This platform can help to improve the compatibility of digital technology and goods in key areas specified by the Northeast Asia Standards Cooperation Forum.
       Aside from digital infrastructure, digital technology, digital technological standards, and data regulation, Korea must seek specific cooperation plans for major countries and regions. For example, Korea can develop policies to increase intellectual property protection in relation to China. Furthermore, it can assist domestic digital trade firms in entering the Comprehensive Testing Region for Cross-Border E-commerce designated by the Chinese government. Korea also needs to conduct discussions with China to facilitate customs issues in e-commerce. In the New Northern Region, Korea should maintain cooperation with Russia in the field of digital services and software, with both countries developing research initiatives and expanding training programs for young researchers. In the New Southern Region, Korea can concentrate its capabilities for cooperation on SMEs and workers to strengthen the digital infrastructure. Establishing preemptive collaboration channels for digital trade between Korea and India would benefit both countries. In Africa, Korea should pursue digital trade policies targeted to the growing need for digital infrastructure, digital technology, public services, and labor force development.
       In regard to climate change, Korea should promote cooperation in such industries as energy transformation and transportation, areas where the EU is also focusing on within its carbon neutrality policy, as well as facilitate the dialogue channel of cooperation with the EU to back up this promotion. Korea also needs to maintain its position in the follow-up discussions to implement the Paris Climate Agreement while communicating closely with the EU.
       In the area of low carbon technology cooperation with the U.S., technological cooperation related to clean energy initiatives, energy efficiency, and carbon removal – which both countries share common interests and are competitive in – could be promoted first. In addition, Korea can also suggest cooperation in areas where the U.S. has global competitiveness, such as adaptation to climate change.
       In order to identify cooperation areas and facilitate multilateral cooperation with the New Southern Region, Korea needs to identify the policy interests and current status of dialogue channels in this area. With ASEAN, Korea needs to continue utilizing dialogue channels such as the Korea-ASEAN Dialogue on Environment and Climate Change. With respect to India, Korea needs to establish a regular high-level dialogue channel and identify specific cooperation demands.
       In the area of health cooperation, Korea needs to overcome the limits of existing international cooperation systems by establishing new international organizations such as an international pandemic treaty. This new organization will have the function of assisting production of vaccines, therapeutics, and equipment for diagnosis and personal protection as well as establishing more effective distribution systems for medicine and medical supplies.
       In order to respond more effectively to the crisis of infectious diseases in the future, it will be necessary to amend the related provisions within WTO agreements, since the production and distribution of medical supplies lies also in the area of international trade. More specifically, particular situations or conditions will have to be defined when the relevant TRIPS clauses can be exempted.
       The fundamental solution to the pandemic is technological innovations in the area of medicine manufacturing and increase of production amounts. In this context, Korea should place more of an emphasis on its current project to establish a global vaccine hub. A cooperation system must be established to co-utilize personnel and facilities through a consortium with companies in the U.S. and Europe.  
       With regard to development cooperation in Asia, the need to differentiate cooperation types, methods and areas has already been pointed out. As a specific action plan, for example, Korea can cooperate with assisting ICT-based hybrid infrastructure projects such as smart city and smart water control to medium-income countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and Philippines. Meanwhile, to low-income countries such as Laos and Myanmar, assistance should be provided to establish basic social infrastructure mainly in the form of ODA.
       For development cooperation with the African region, systematic cooperation among the ODA-implementing entities is crucial. A good example is the Muhimbili University Hospital project in Tanzania. Korea could also consider promoting utilization of development finance, for the purpose of supporting private sector development in the region.
       In the Latin American region, Korea should explore plans to participate in large-sized energy projects by co-financing with the MDBs, since such countries as Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia are currently pursuing energy transformation initiatives.
    닫기
  • 언택트 시대 중국의 유아 조기교육 실태와 대응 방안: 북경 지역을 중심으로

    Date 2021.12.30

    Chinese education China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 포스트 코로나 시대의 중국 교육 발전 방향 탐색- 14차 5개년(2021~2025) 계획과 교육..

    Date 2021.12.30

    Chinese education China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 신기술 확산이 고용관계에 미친 영향에 관한 한중 비교

    Date 2021.12.30

    Economic relations, Labor market China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 포스트코로나 시대의 한·중 청소년 생활실태 및 가치관 비교연구

    Date 2021.12.30

    Chinese social culture China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 여성 기업인 성장에 대한 한·중 비교 연구

    Date 2021.12.30

    Economic cooperation, Chinese social culture China

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
    닫기
  • 미ㆍ중 갈등시대, 유럽의 대미ㆍ중 인식 및관계 분석: 역사적 고찰과 전망
    US-China Conflict, the Analysis on Europe’s Perceptions and Relations with the US and China: Historical Study and Prospects

       With the advent of the era of G2, where the U.S.-China hegemony competition intensifies, many countries are struggling to build relations with the US and China. The European Union (EU) has maintained a close political..

    Seung-Keun Lee et al. Date 2021.12.30

    Political Economy, International politics Europe

    Download

    Content
    닫기
    Summary
       With the advent of the era of G2, where the U.S.-China hegemony competition intensifies, many countries are struggling to build relations with the US and China. The European Union (EU) has maintained a close political, security and economic ties with the US. The EU shares identical security vision with the US. In contrast, the EU defined its relations with China as a cooperation partner, competitor and rival. It refers to the EU’s multifaceted relations with China. In climate change, multilateral trades and normative areas, the EU seeks to cooperate with China. However, the EU prompts profit balance through negotiations in the economic sector. Against this backdrop, the EU introduced a concept called ‘strategic autonomy’ by synthesizing the path dependence, Europe’s confronting issues and the EU’s strength and values regarding its relations with the US and China. The EU’s responses to the US-China conflicts are worth further attention.
       EU-US relations are based on Atlanticism, emphasizing the importance of bilateral cooperation based on identical civilization. Atlanticism emerged mainly in Britain in the 19th century as a concept encompassing democracy and the development of Western civilization. After World War II, it was embodied in the “Atlantic Alliance” formation, and NATO was launched in 1949. The establishment of the post-war European order began by the US’ Marshall Plan. In Europe, France pushed for independent economic reconstruction in 1951 by establishing European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). In this process, confrontations between European countries were expressed by conflicts between British-centered “Atlanticism,” which values building relations with the United States, and French-centered “Europeanism,” which calls for Europeans to lead the establishment of European order. Since the end of the Cold War, on the one hand, Atlanticism has weakened relatively in the context of trans-Atlantic relations.
       Europeanism has recently re-emerged due to the expansion of the autonomous cooperation of European States. The clash between Atlanticism and Europeanism intensified, centered on the conflicts between UK/US and France, as Europe-US relations has been established as a ‘competitive and symbiotic relationship’. In January 2017, the emergence of the Trump administration, which promotes US priority and neo-isolationism, served as a decisive opportunity for cracks in the Atlantic Alliance.
       In terms of economic relations, the United States and the EU are the world’s first and second-largest economies, accounting for 42.7% of the world’s GDP and 29.1% of trade, respectively. They are mutually important trading and investment partners. In this situation, the two sides negotiated the FTA during the 2013-16 period, but it was suspended after the inauguration of the Trump administration, and bilateral trade relations rapidly deteriorated with the emergence of protection trade measures. Simultaneously, China led the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and as many European countries participated, EU-China relations were also promoted. Amid intensifying trade conflicts between the US and China, the EU and the US agreed in July 2018 to minimize trade friction. Since then, they have cooperated in controlling China in the trade sector. The rise of the Trump administration deteriorated its relations with European states, which led a sharp decrease in supporting President Trump, and European perceptions of the US have changed negatively. The Atlantic alliance was eventually exacerbated. The Biden Administration received the task of recovering the broken Atlantic relations caused by the Trump administration. European perceptions of the US have significantly improved in this respect. During the terms of Trump administration, the negative perceptions about the US were predominant—weakening the US hegemony by viewing China as a leader rather than the US. However, after the Biden’s inauguration, the perception survey results showed that the positive perceptions about the US had increased again, and the US was viewed as a significant partner. The survey respondents recognized the limitation of the US political system and democracy model, so Europe’s perspectives on the US seemed to be changed from the past.
       The 1975 establishment of EU-China diplomatic relations laid the foundation of trade and economic cooperation, environmental dialogue, bilateral summits and human rights talks. Despite each European state showing different attitudes toward China, the two sides maintained relatively sound relations until the end of the 2000s. However, after experiencing the European sovereign debt crisis around 2010, Europeans started to perceive the importance of revising their approaches or policy instruments toward China. In particular, the COVID-19 crisis and US-China conflicts were the leading causes of changing European perceptions of China. The EU declared China not only as a strategic partner but also as a systemic rival. While requiring economic and investment cooperation with China, the EU are cautious about China’s extreme expansionism, human rights violation and challenges to the liberal democracy. It also emphasizes the importance of strategic responses in a multifaceted relationship.
       Europe-China relations have undergone the biggest changes in the economic sector. Since the rapid growth of Chinese economy, the EU-China trade volume has significantly increased. As a result, the two parties became their number one trading partners. In this process, the EU’s trade deficit with China increased over 180 billion Euros in 2020. Until the mid-2000s, European businesses mainly invested in China.
       In contrast, Chinese businesses began to increase their investment toward Europe after the 2008 global financial crisis. In 2017, China’s investment in the EU exceeded the volume of the EU’s investment in China. Recently, China’s investment in the EU is usually implemented as formats of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the key industry. It has been a direct cause of the EU’s introduction of a screening system for foreign investment and urging China to sign a bilateral investment agreement.
       European public perceptions of China have negatively changed. European respondents showed their negative perceptions toward China except for the EU-China trade. However, the younger generation relatively showed more positive attitudes toward China than the older generation, which implies further changes. Currently, EU-China relations have changed into a high-tension status. It is still questionable whether the EU maintain their antipathy toward China in the case of the EU’s future enlargement.
       Traditionally, the EU’s diplomacy is characterized by multilateralism, promoting active cooperation among multiple actors. It contrasts significantly from the US’ unilateral diplomatic approach. Hence, the EU has shown its leadership in the fields where multilateralism is universally applicable, such as environment, human rights and climate change. However, in recent years, the EU has been strengthening its own capabilities by ‘strengthening strategic autonomy’. Also, the EU has recently been trying to benefit from diplomacy, national defense, industry, and technology.
       Furthermore, the EU attempts to weigh up its Atlantic partnership with the US against its economic partnership with China. US-China conflict would not be easily resolved under the Biden Administration. On the one hand, the US tried to restore its broken trans-Atlantic alliance. On the other hand, the US established an AUKUS—an alternative alliance with Australia and the UK—which could be regarded as a warning sign. Accordingly, the EU shows its selective cooperation with the US rather than the Union’s complete reliance against the US. Against China, the EU attempted to take a multifaceted approach to each issue. It means the EU’s active support in the areas of trade and investment and the EU’s apparent confrontation against China in the areas of illegal subsidies and unfair practices.
       International conflicts continue to emerge due to a recent combination between security and the economy. The EU’s ‘open strategic autonomy’ is a byproduct of high coordination and troubles in this process. Europe’s strategy for dealing with the US and China provides implications for Korea’s diplomatic and trade policies. South Korea’s diplomacy is at the crossroads due to the US-China conflict triggered by the Trump administration period. It is because South Korea cannot abandon only its value-based alliance with the US but also its significant geopolitical and economic interests with China. First of all, in diplomacy, South Korea-US relations need to be rooted in their alliance because they have shared common values such as liberal democracy and a market economy system. Simultaneously, it is necessary to find an equilibrium between value and pragmatism through establishing multifaceted relations. South Korea does not share its political values and systems with China, but it is obviously an important partner in terms of its economy, climate change, and geopolitical weight. South Korea needs to advocate norm-based international relations by the active participation of the multilateral international order, taking the leading role by finding out the relevant issues and strengthening its solidarity with like-minded partners.
       In the field of trade, it is essential to note the competition paradigm has been shifting into a form combining technical advances, trade policy, labor and environmental regulations. In particular, international actors are inclined to combine trade policies with social issues like climate change, labor and human rights for restraining China. Therefore, South Korea needs to implement preemptive improvement of the systems up to the level of advanced countries in these fields. It also needs to implement diverse approaches such as traditional trade policies based on the FTAs, public diplomacy based on democracy and human rights, and CSR activities which are under company units. Additionally, it is necessary to actively respond to the changes in the global supply chain by participating in the chain reorganization supported by the US and the EU or the restoration plan by using bilateral economic cooperation and local corporations of Korean companies.
    닫기