Min Gyo Koo – författare

islands has emotional content far beyond any material significance because giving way on the island issue to Japan would be considered as once again compromising the sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula. For Japan, the Dokdo issue may lack the same degree of strategic and economic values and emotional appeal as the other two territorial disputes that Japan has had with Russia and the two Chinas – namely the Northern Territories/Southern Kurile Islands and the Senkaku Islands, respectively. Nevertheless, fishing resources and the maritime boundary issues became highly salient with the introduction of UNCLOS. Also, the legal, political, and economic issues surrounding Dokdo are all intertwined with Japan’s other territorial disputes to the extent that concessions of sovereignty on any of these island disputes could jeopardize claims or negotiations concerning the rest. South Korea and Japan have forged a deeper diplomatic and economic partn- ship over the past decade. A new spirit of partnership after the landmark joint declaration of 1998 culminated in the successful co-hosting of the World Cup 2002. At the end of 2003 the two neighbors began to negotiate an FTA to further strengthen their already close economic ties. South Korea’s decades-long embargo on Japanese cultural products has now been lifted, while a number of South Korean pop stars are currently sweeping across Japan, creating the so-called “Korean Wave” fever. A pragmatic calculation of national interests would thus suggest cooperative behavior.

Can regional mechanisms better institutionalize the increasing complexity of economic and security ties among the countries in Northeast Asia?

islands has emotional content far beyond any material significance because giving way on the island issue to Japan would be considered as once again compromising the sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula. For Japan, the Dokdo issue may lack the same degree of strategic and economic values and emotional appeal as the other two territorial disputes that Japan has had with Russia and the two Chinas – namely the Northern Territories/Southern Kurile Islands and the Senkaku Islands, respectively. Nevertheless, fishing resources and the maritime boundary issues became highly salient with the introduction of UNCLOS. Also, the legal, political, and economic issues surrounding Dokdo are all intertwined with Japan’s other territorial disputes to the extent that concessions of sovereignty on any of these island disputes could jeopardize claims or negotiations concerning the rest. South Korea and Japan have forged a deeper diplomatic and economic partn- ship over the past decade. A new spirit of partnership after the landmark joint declaration of 1998 culminated in the successful co-hosting of the World Cup 2002. At the end of 2003 the two neighbors began to negotiate an FTA to further strengthen their already close economic ties. South Korea’s decades-long embargo on Japanese cultural products has now been lifted, while a number of South Korean pop stars are currently sweeping across Japan, creating the so-called “Korean Wave” fever. A pragmatic calculation of national interests would thus suggest cooperative behavior.

In this context, the volume analyzes the way in which the dynamics of public administration were shaped within the Korean government and the kinds of public policies and instruments that were adopted to encourage this economic and social development.

In the postwar period, Korea’s economic and social-political metamorphosis is a rare example of a successful transition from one of the world’s poorest developing countries to a highly sophisticated industrial society—an experience which many developing countries are keen to emulate.  The change is particularly significant as Korea was able to reduce poverty and keep social inequality at a modest level during its rapid economic development. This volume analyzes the Korean transition in regards to the political and institutional foundation of its government and public policies.  The government of Korea single-mindedly carried out public policies to stimulate economic growth, but the government and public policies have themselves been affected and changed by the process.  The contention of this volume is that the transition of Korean society and the evolution of the Korean government are the results of two-way interactions.  In this context, the volume analyzes the way in which the dynamics of public administration were shaped within the Korean government and the kinds of public policies and instruments that were adopted to encourage this economic and social development.  This analysis will allow a more complete understanding of the economic and social transformation of Korea.  Surprisingly, there is a paucity of research on this aspect—a gap which this volume seeks to fill.  This volume shows that it is necessary to maintain consistency and coherence in government and public policy in order to achieve economic and social transformation, making it of interest to both scholars and policy-makers concerned with development in the Asia-Pacific.

This volume chronicles the policy challenges and adaptations faced and made by the South Korean government during the post-industrialization and democratization period.

This volume chronicles the policy challenges and adaptations faced and made by the South Korean government during the post-industrialization and democratization period.

Can regional and interregional mechanisms better institutionalize the - creasing complexity of economic and security ties among states in Nor- east, Southeast, and South Asia? As the international state system und- goes dramatic changes in both security and trade relations in the wake of the Cold War’s end, the Asian financial crisis, and the attacks of Sept- ber 11, 2001, this question is now of critical importance to both academics and policymakers. Still, little research has been done to integrate the ana- sis of both regional security and economic dynamics within a broader c- text that will give us theoretically informed policy insights. Indeed, when we began our background research on the origin and e- lution of Asia’s institutional architecture in trade and security, we found that many scholars had focused on individual subregions, whether Nor- east, Southeast or South Asia. In some cases, scholars examined links - tween Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the literature often refers to these two subregions collectively as “Asia”, artificially bracketing South Asia. Of course, we are aware that as products of culture, economics, history, and politics, the boundaries of geographic regions change over time. Yet the rapid rise of India and its increasing links to East Asia (especially those formed in the early 1990s) suggest that it would be fruitful to examine both developments within each subregion as well as links across subregions.

Can regional and interregional mechanisms better institutionalize the - creasing complexity of economic and security ties among states in Nor- east, Southeast, and South Asia? As the international state system und- goes dramatic changes in both security and trade relations in the wake of the Cold War’s end, the Asian financial crisis, and the attacks of Sept- ber 11, 2001, this question is now of critical importance to both academics and policymakers. Still, little research has been done to integrate the ana- sis of both regional security and economic dynamics within a broader c- text that will give us theoretically informed policy insights. Indeed, when we began our background research on the origin and e- lution of Asia’s institutional architecture in trade and security, we found that many scholars had focused on individual subregions, whether Nor- east, Southeast or South Asia. In some cases, scholars examined links - tween Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the literature often refers to these two subregions collectively as “Asia”, artificially bracketing South Asia. Of course, we are aware that as products of culture, economics, history, and politics, the boundaries of geographic regions change over time. Yet the rapid rise of India and its increasing links to East Asia (especially those formed in the early 1990s) suggest that it would be fruitful to examine both developments within each subregion as well as links across subregions.

Can regional mechanisms better institutionalize the increasing complexity of economic and security ties among the countries in Northeast Asia? As the international state system undergoes dramatic changes in both security and economic relations in the wake of the end of the Cold War, the Asian financial crisis, and the attack of 9/11, this question is now at the forefront of the minds of both academics and policymakers. Still, little research has been done to integrate the analysis of security and economic analysis of changes in the region within a broader context that will give us theoretically-informed policy insights. Against this backdrop, this book investigates the origins and evolution of Northeast Asia's new institutional architecture in trade, finance, and security from both a theoretical and empirical perspective.