DOCSLIB.ORG

GEORGIA – KOREA Economic Development Connection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GEORGIA – KOREA Economic Development Connection GEORGIA – KOREA Economic Development Connection In December 2012, the Korea Chamber of Government & Commerce Commerce & Industry (KCCI) sent a delegation of 11 companies on a trade mission to meet with Georgia The Consulate General of the Republic of Korea is businesses, the Georgia Department of Economic located in Atlanta and serves Georgia, Alabama, Development and Governor Deal. The mission was Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, led by KCCI chairman Kyung-shik Sohn. Tennessee, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Seong-jin Kim serves as Consul General. The University System of Georgia offers at least 13 study abroad programs to various cities in South The state of Georgia has had continuous Korea. representation in Korea since 1985. Director Hee- jung Shin has been affiliated with the state’s economic development efforts in Korea since Trade Relationship 2006. The KORUS FTA was signed on June 30, 2007 and Two Georgia communities have sister city went into effect on March 15, 2012. This agreements with South Korea: Atlanta - Daegu; comprehensive trade agreement eliminated tariffs Cobb County - Seongdong-Gu. and non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and services. Atlanta is home to the Korean Southeast United States Chamber of Commerce, Korean-American EXPORTS: In 2014, Georgia exports to Korea Chamber of Commerce, Korean-American totaled $1.24 billion, an increase of 54.92% over th Scientists and Engineers Association and the 2013. South Korea is the 9 largest export market Korean American Coalition. for Georgia. Governor Nathan Deal traveled to Korea in 2011 Top exports from Georgia to Korea include civilian and 2013. In addition to the Governor’s focus on aircraft, engines and parts, gas and vapor turbines, trade and investment relationships, First Lady wood pulp, electric machinery and plastics. Sandra Deal visited schools and met with social Georgia leads the nation in the export of the organizations in South Korea. following goods to Korea: chemical wood pulp, In 2012, the Georgia Department of Education kaolinic clays, and carpets & other textile floor signed a Memorandum of Understanding with a coverings. Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education to IMPORTS: In 2014, Georgia’s imports from Korea promote the sharing of best practices with totaled slightly more than $6.2 billion. The country charter schools. is the 3rd largest import market for Georgia. Top imports from Korea include motor vehicles, tractors, bulldozers, plastics and articles of iron or steel. Capital Investment About GDEcD There are at least 25 Georgia companies with The Georgia Department of Economic operations in Korea, including but not limited to: Development (GDEcD) is the state’s sales and marketing arm, the lead agency for attracting AFC Enterprises new business investment, encouraging the ARRIS Group, Inc. expansion of existing industry and small CP Kelco businesses, aligning workforce education and Delta Air Lines training with in-demand jobs, locating new Halyard Health markets for Georgia products, attracting tourists Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. to Georgia, and promoting the state as a Novelis Inc. destination for arts and location for film, music The Coca-Cola Company and digital entertainment projects, as well as planning and mobilizing state resources for UPS economic development. UPS Supply Chain Solutions Georgia is home to at least 68 Korean facilities, of GDEcD’s Economic Development Representative in Korea which at least 28 are manufacturing locations. These Korean-affiliated companies currently Hee-jung Shin employ more than 4,700 Georgians. A full list can Director be found online at insite.georgia.org. State of Georgia – Korea Hyochang-Dong 5-23, Yongsan-Ku The largest Korean investment in Georgia is Kia Seoul 140-896 – KOREA Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (KMMG) in T: +82 (2) 702. 6093 West Point. In June 2012, Kia and 26 suppliers [email protected] announced that they would make investments *Information valid as of September 2015 totaling more than $1.5 billion in the state. KMMG is the first manufacturing site in North America for Kia Motors Corporation, and began mass production on November 16, 2009. Beginning in 2012, the plant has the ability to build 360,000 vehicles annually from U.S. and globally-sourced parts. Georgia is home to five of the top ten conglomerates of Korea including SKC, Doosan, LG Chemical, Kumho and Kia Motors. Transportation Delta Air Lines and Korean Air offer daily direct flights from Atlanta to Seoul, South Korea. The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) in Savannah has an established relationship with the Port of Pusan in Korea. GPA offers 8 weekly shipping services to South Korea. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S.-South Korea Relations
    U.S.-South Korea Relations Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator Specialist in Asian Affairs Emma Chanlett-Avery Specialist in Asian Affairs Mary Beth D. Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation Brock R. Williams Analyst in International Trade and Finance Jonathan R. Corrado Research Associate May 23, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41481 U.S.-South Korea Relations Summary Overview South Korea (officially the Republic of Korea, or ROK) is one of the United States’ most important strategic and economic partners in Asia. Congressional interest in South Korea is driven by both security and trade interests. Since the early 1950s, the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty commits the United States to help South Korea defend itself. Approximately 28,500 U.S. troops are based in the ROK, which is included under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.” Washington and Seoul cooperate in addressing the challenges posed by North Korea. The two countries’ economies are joined by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). South Korea is the United States’ seventh-largest trading partner and the United States is South Korea’s second- largest trading partner. Between 2009 and the end of 2016, relations between the two countries arguably reached their most robust state in decades. Political changes in both countries in 2017, however, have generated uncertainty about the state of the relationship. Coordination of North Korea Policy Dealing with North Korea is the dominant strategic concern of the relationship. The Trump Administration appears to have raised North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs to a top U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Present and Future of Americanization in South Korea
    ARTICLE .51 The Present and Future of Americanization in South Korea Seong Won Park The Hawaii Research Center USA Abstract This paper examines the historical origins and current processes of both pro- and anti-Americanism in South Korea, where Americanization is associated with Koreans' wealth and security in the era of globalization. However, it is suggested here that South Korea should explore alternatives to Americanization by considering a range of alternative futures for Korean society. The future is always changing, so South Korea has to carefully observe current situations and continuously redesign their vision of the future by considering four alternatives to Americanization rather than subscribing to only one dominant vision. Keywords: Americanization, anti-Americanism, patriarchal society, South Korea, alternatives, globalization, English Introduction South Korea has done nothing to curb Americanization since the 1950s, and in an era of global- ization, Korean society is becoming more influenced by the United States in terms of economic, political, and psychological realms. However, anti-Americanism has been recently growing rapidly there. The reactions to Americanization reflect changes of Koreans' consciousness about wealth and security. This paper examines the origins and processes of both pro- and anti-Americanism in Korea and forecasts possible alternatives appropriate for strengthening Korea's future security and wealth. The first part of this paper discusses how Americanization occurred in South Korea and how it has become Americanized through 1) the number of US-educated Ph.D.s in universities and govern- ment, 2) the propensity to adopt American lifestyles, and 3) the high market shares of American movies and television programming.
    [Show full text]
  • The Globalization of K-Pop: the Interplay of External and Internal Forces
    THE GLOBALIZATION OF K-POP: THE INTERPLAY OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FORCES Master Thesis presented by Hiu Yan Kong Furtwangen University MBA WS14/16 Matriculation Number 249536 May, 2016 Sworn Statement I hereby solemnly declare on my oath that the work presented has been carried out by me alone without any form of illicit assistance. All sources used have been fully quoted. (Signature, Date) Abstract This thesis aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis about the growing popularity of Korean pop music (K-pop) worldwide in recent years. On one hand, the international expansion of K-pop can be understood as a result of the strategic planning and business execution that are created and carried out by the entertainment agencies. On the other hand, external circumstances such as the rise of social media also create a wide array of opportunities for K-pop to broaden its global appeal. The research explores the ways how the interplay between external circumstances and organizational strategies has jointly contributed to the global circulation of K-pop. The research starts with providing a general descriptive overview of K-pop. Following that, quantitative methods are applied to measure and assess the international recognition and global spread of K-pop. Next, a systematic approach is used to identify and analyze factors and forces that have important influences and implications on K-pop’s globalization. The analysis is carried out based on three levels of business environment which are macro, operating, and internal level. PEST analysis is applied to identify critical macro-environmental factors including political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological.
    [Show full text]
  • South Korea's Economic Engagement Toward North Korea
    South Korea’s Economic Engagement toward North Korea Lee Sangkeun & Moon Chung-in 226 | Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies On February 10, 2016, the South Korean government announced the closure of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, a symbol of its engagement policy and inter-Korean rapprochement. The move was part of its proactive, unilateral sanctions against North Korea’s fourth nuclear test in January and rocket launch in February.1 Pyongyang reciprocated by expelling South Korean personnel working in the industrial complex and declaring it a military control zone.2 Although the May 24, 2010 measure following the sinking of the Cheonan naval vessel significantly restricted inter-Korea exchanges and cooperation, the Seoul government spared the Gaeseong complex. With its closure, however, inter-Korean economic relations came to a complete halt, and no immediate signs of revival of Seoul’s economic engagement with the North can be detected. This chapter aims at understanding the rise and decline of this engagement with North Korea by comparing the progressive decade of Kim Dae-jung (KDJ) and Roh Moo-hyun (RMH) with the conservative era of Lee Myung-bak (LMB) and Park Geun-hye (PGH). It also looks to the future of inter-Korean relations by examining three plausible scenarios of economic engagement. Section one presents a brief overview of the genesis of Seoul’s economic engagement strategy in the early 1990s, section two examines this engagement during the progressive decade (1998-2007), and section three analyzes that of the conservative era (2008-2015). They are followed by a discussion of three possible outlooks on the future of Seoul’s economic engagement with Pyongyang.
    [Show full text]
  • South Korean Efforts to Counter North Korean Aggression
    http://www.au.af.mil/au/csds/ South Korean Efforts to Counter North The Trinity Site Korean Aggression Papers By Major Aaron C. Baum, USAF http://www.au.af.mil/au/csds/ Recent North Korean nuclear aggression has raised debates Prior to the armistice, President Dwight Eisenhower signaled about how the United States should secure its interests in North- his willingness to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean Con- east Asia. However, any action on the peninsula should consid- flict. He then reiterated his resolve should China and North Ko- er the security preferences of American allies, especially the rea reinitiate hostilities.3 From 1958 to 1991, the United States Republic of Korea (ROK). With militaristic rhetoric coming stationed nuclear artillery, bombs, and missiles in South Korea from the Trump administration, the question arises of how im- to counter a North Korean invasion.4 Further, in 1975 the Ford portant U.S. policy is to the actions of our Korean allies in administration affirmed that the United States would consider countering North Korean (DPRK) nuclear aggression. Thus, it the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict “likely to result in de- is important to review nuclear crises of the past and the align- feat in any area of great importance to the United States in Asia ment of U.S. and ROK policy toward Pyongyang. This paper … including Korea.”5 reviews three periods of nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula It was not until 1978 at the 11th Security Consultative and argues that U.S. military policy is not the sole factor deter- Mechanism (SCM) that extended nuclear deterrence was for- mining South Korean response to DPRK nuclear provocation.
    [Show full text]
  • Seoul, South Korea Brochure
    Global Education Education Global SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA KOREA SOUTH SEOUL, (CGE) for Center HOBART AND WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGES SMITH WILLIAM AND HOBART EXCURSIONS The Korea program is not a “study abroad program” in the traditional sense. While there will not be excursions throughout the semester designed specifically for HWS students, when you arrive in Korea, you will have an orientation which will include a campus tour, an explanation of academic and residence hall policies, and an overview of the city of Seoul and how to get around safely and efficiently. You will be briefed on special opportunities for international students such as doing a weekend homestay experience, joining student clubs and having a Korean “buddy”. The “buddy program” matches new incoming exchange students with Yonsei University students, to help newly arrived students settle in and make the transition to life in Korea. Students are encouraged to seek out opportunities to immerse themselves in campus life and the local culture. Yonsei University campus GOING ABROAD WITH THE CGE Students will be charged standard HWS tuition and a $550 administrative fee. This will cover tuition for a four-course semes- ter and the orientation program. No room or board charge is included: students will pay dorm fees directly to Yonsei University and should plan to bring their board fee to cover meal expenses throughout the program. Additional expenses not covered include airfare, books and personal expenses (laundry, entertainment, ground transportation and independent travel). We estimate air- fare for this program at $1400-$1600 from the East Coast, room fees at approximately $1250, meals at $1600—1800 and books at $150.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Must Limit Damage from the Japan–South Korea Trade Dispute Bruce Klingner and Riley Walters
    BACKGROUNDER No. 3429 | AUGUST 7, 2019 ASIAN STUDIES CENTER The U.S. Must Limit Damage from the Japan–South Korea Trade Dispute Bruce Klingner and Riley Walters apan and South Korea have recently imposed KEY TAKEAWAYS rulings that impact each other’s financial inter- ests—and risk triggering a strategic trade war. The U.S. government has an important J Strained bilateral economic relations undermine U.S. role to play in mediating the relationship diplomatic and security coordination that is necessary between Tokyo and Seoul and protecting vital trilateral security coordination. for dealing with the North Korean threat. Japanese–South Korean relations suffer from centuries of built-up animosity from sensitive histor- The current situation puts U.S. strategic ical issues and sovereignty disputes. Cyclical spikes goals at risk. Japan and South Korea are in tensions are triggered by incidents that unleash important economic partners and the nationalist furor in both countries. Yet during these foundation of U.S. foreign policy in Asia. outbreaks, bilateral economic and security sectors were never involved at any official level and, instead, To safeguard those objectives, the U.S. served as moderating influences. That changed for the must get directly involved as a behind- worse last year. the-scenes facilitator, helping the two The U.S. government has an important role to allies reach a compromise. play in mediating the relationship between its two allies. Tokyo and Seoul must not allow historical This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3429 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of China on South Korea's Economy
    Dynamic Forces on the Korean Peninsula: Strategic & Economic Implications 61 IMPACT OF CHINA ON SOUTH KOREA’S ECONOMY Cheong Young-rok* CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Evaluations of Sino-Korean Economic Interactions III. Measuring the Impact of China on Korean Economy IV. Other Critical Issues V. Concluding Remarks: Is Korea Rational or National? *Cheong Young-rok is Professor at the Graduate School of International Stud- ies at Seoul National University. The author thanks those who commented on this paper as well as his research assistants. 62 U.S.–Korea Academic Symposium I. Introduction In 2005, the Korean ambassador to China was excited about the completion within five years of the target trade volume of over $100 billion with China, which was set by the Korean government at the time of the inauguration of President Roh Moo-hyun in 2003. China also became the number one recipient of Korea’s outflow of investment as well as the destination of one of the largest groups of Korean students studying overseas. On the one hand, many businesspeople talk about the further importance of China, and they even send their children to China.1 On the other hand, many of the high-society households in Korea, especially in the Kangnam district that is considered to be the Korean Beverly Hills, hire ethnic Koreans who have returned from China to serve as their housemaids. On the increased importance of China for the Korean economy, there are two different schools of thought in Korean academia: one school argues that China is a mere clone or extension of other Asian countries that were once glorified as newly industrializing economies or high-performing Asian economies .
    [Show full text]
  • Japan and Korea: a Turbulent History
    Japan and Korea : A Turbulent History Kwan-young Kim International Relations 163 Professor R. F. Wylie 03 / 24 / 99 Japan and Korea: A Turbulent History Kwan-young Kim Contents Introduction 3 Prehistory to the 16th Century 4 Invasions of Korea and Korean Embassies to Edo 5 Meiji Restoration to the Annexation of Korea 6 Colonial Period 8 1945-1952 10 Relations with South Korea 1952- 11 Relations with North Korea 1952- 15 Koreans in Japan 17 Conclusion 19 Japan and Korea: A Turbulent History Kwan-young Kim Introduction Both Koreans and Japanese people call each other that the countries are very close geographically each other but they are very distant from in many respects. Japan had an on-and-off history of territorial ambition in Korea that went back many centuries. Polls during the postwar period in Japan and South Korea showed that the people of each nation had a profound dislike of the other country and people. The two countries have a long history of hostility. Admiral Sun-sin Lee, whose armor-plated boats eventually defeated the Japanese navy's damaging attacks in the 1590s, was South Korea's most revered national hero. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture's adoption in the 1980s of revised textbook-guidelines, softening the language used to describe Japan's aggression during world War , inspired outrage in South Korea as well as in other Asian countries. Today, Japan is one of four major powers along with the United States, Russia, and China that have important security interests on the Korean Peninsula1.
    [Show full text]
  • On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche [Chuch'e] in Ideological Work
    Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) “ON ELIMINATING DOGMATISM AND FORMALISM AND ESTABLISHING JUCHE [CHUCH’E] IN IDEOLOGICAL WORK” (SPEECH, 1955) By Kim Ilsŏng Introduction After the end of colonial rule in 1945, political divisions within Korea interacted with the escalating Cold War tension between the United States and USSR, each of which had occupied and fostered a government in one half of the peninsula, to create the conditions that led to the Korean War (1950‐53). In the aftermath of that war, with its non‐decisive result, the separation of North and South Korean states (officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, respectively) has been maintained to this day, continually reproduced until fairly recently by an atmosphere of mutual hostility. The Kim Ilsŏng (1912‐1994) government of the North considered itself the heir of the Communist anti‐imperialist struggle against Japanese forces in Manchuria. As time passed, other ideological foci came to supplement or even supplant Marxism‐Leninism as the central official state ideology. In this 1955 speech, entitled “On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche in Ideological Work,” Kim explained what he meant by juche (“subjectivity” in literal translation) and why it was important for North Korea. Document Excerpts with Questions (Longer selection follows this section) From Sources of Korean Tradition, edited by Yŏng‐ho Ch’oe, Peter H. Lee, and Wm. Theodore de Bary, vol. 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 420‐424. © 2000 Columbia University Press. Reproduced with the permission of the publisher. All rights reserved. “On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche [Chuch’e] in Ideological Work” (Speech, 1955) By Kim Ilsŏng … It is important in our work to grasp revolutionary truth, Marxist‑Leninist truth, and apply it correctly to our actual conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Development Mechanisms in Korea and Taiwan: Introductory Analysis
    The Developing Economies, XXXV-4 (December 1997): 341–57 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS IN KOREA AND TAIWAN: INTRODUCTORY ANALYSIS TAMIO HATTORI YUKIHITO SATO$ INTRODUCTION HE extremely rare type of high-level, sustained postwar economic growth experienced by the Republic of Korea (hereafter Korea) and Taiwan has T drawn the attention of many scholars interested in economic development. Many have also attempted to analyze the two economies as examples of identical economic phenomena. Since both economies’ development pattern can be charac- terized by export-led industrialization depending on the Japanese and U.S. mar- kets, such views are not at all surprising. However, having a common development pattern does not necessarily guarantee the existence of a common mechanism by which development was achieved. In fact, there is a heated debate in progress con- cerning the way in which Korea and Taiwan achieved development between those who support a market-led development hypothesis and those who support a gov- ernment-led development hypothesis. In the present paper, we aim to rid ourselves of such a debate by suggesting that there were different mechanisms by which the two economies developed and dis- cussing the reasons why these mechanisms are different. In Section I, we will de- fine what we mean by “development pattern” and “development mechanism.” In Section II we will verify the similarity of Korea and Taiwan with respect to high- level economic growth and their development patterns. Then in Section III, we will review the research to date concerning development mechanism, show that both the market-led and government-led development hypotheses have been built upon strong a priori assumptions, and argue that the similarities and differences between development mechanisms in the two economies should be reexamined after re- moving such assumptions from consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Road to Korean Reunification by Jan Dehn
    THE EMERGING VIEW June 2018 On the road to Korean reunification By Jan Dehn A solution to the Korean Conflict is about a quarter of a century overdue, but now there is movement. The outlook is naturally highly uncertain at this point. Still, we explain here what we imagine may happen in the coming months and decades. Reunification of the two Koreas would be a logical consequence of a peace deal, in our view. This possibility should therefore now be given serious consideration. Reunification would require significant and sustained social and infrastructure investment in the North by the South. The return would take decades to materialise, but would ultimately favour Korea itself, while China would be the other major beneficiary, mainly via increased economic influence. The US President would gain from being seen to strike a deal to help end the Korean conflict, but the US as a nation would lose political and military influence. If Korean reunification takes place Japan would also become more isolated as America’s last remaining ally in the region. Introduction The Korean conflict was rooted in the A solution to the Korean Conflict is about a quarter of a century ideological battles, which prevailed at the overdue. On one side of the negotiation table, South Korean President Moon Jae-in gets the credit for spotting the height of the Cold War. A solution to the opportunity for peace, while US President Donald Trump has Korean conflict is well overdue so far been kind enough to side-line the national interest of the US in order to pave the way for a deal.
    [Show full text]