Monday, December 9, 2013
Blog 4. What is the relation between economics and globalization?
1. What is the main issue about the realtionship between economy and globalization?
That is TNC. TNC means the transnational corporation- is the main actor performing in the world economy.
Coporations which have located outside their home country and have the power
to control other countries as economy and to manufacture productinon outside
their home country have made business empires at a world scale. the companines like thoesare increasing and growing in the world. And TNC activity is measured by using statistics on FDI.
Then wht and how firms are transnationalizaed? First, the reasons wy the firms extend their operations are market-oriented investment and asset-oriendted investment. The firms want to create more profits from other countires beyond their home country because they even can't get investment from their home country anymore. And Second, the way the firms develop transnational activities is greenfield and cooperate with other firms.
The TNCs are the most important aspect in global economy market. They have so powerful authority to extend their business in their ways.
2. I think that we should consider TNCs with a critical view. TNCs have brought the development
of global economy but, in fact not global. It just is the development which is selfish and
partial.
3. I guess that the most influential part of globalization is economy. I hope that we
know more about how globalization have affected global economy and our daily lives.
The globalization of economy of South Korea
Relationship between economics and globalization
- The globalization of economy of South Korea
The economy of Korea Rep. started to globalize itself throughout the 1960s, because of the lack of technology and the insufficiency of resources. Korea had to fulfill its resources through importation, but the money for the importation was not enough, thus, the structure of the economy of Korea automatically designed to ‘earning dollar-based exportation’. The result of this economy program was not that bad and Korea right now is one of the most important economical nations. The ‘globalization-based economy’ brought the success to Korea. Countries like before South Korea - countries with lack of resources - tries to follow what it had walked through and to those countries, no words are necessary in the point of the importance of the globalization of economy. However, this kind of economic type, high dependency economy, makes huge problem when the world economy trembles. Almost every economic necessities will get harmed throughout the entire country, such as oil, steel, gas and more.
Consequently, the globalization of economy is not an option because of the lack of resources, the limitation of capital and so on. Economics and globalization is an one-set term, not a separate concept.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
What is the relation between economics and globalization?
1. Economy is also moving beyond geographical boundaries of nations. There are many multinational corporations like Mcdonalds, Coca cola everywhere in the world. Also, economic interdependence between countries has increased. We can find that the volume of trade has increased. (Except the World War) However, It is not true that these economic flow always doesn't be hindered from something. Some cacophonies of economic globalization can be existing. So TNC is very important part in economic globalization. Briefly, It is the transnational corporation beyond national boundaries.
Capitalism survived among many social ideologies. And the invisible hand that can move money of the world is moving our economy. But are it just right things these corporation of capitalism? The documentary that we watched in our class (The Corporation, 2003) show us the scene of capitalism. The brands wrapped by commercial are familiar with us. And They have dominated us little by little. Can we blame them because they caused economic polarization and took resources indiscriminately? I think that we should never forget that we are also the part of capitalism.
In conclusion, I think that economic globalization is a viewpoint of macroscopic economy. However, it has many problems nowadays. We should think about the hidden side of economic globalization.
2. At the end of the class, I have many doubtful points about the conception of globalization that we have just thought positive. I think we should keep approaching these problems with interests.
3. I wonder how can we change this enormous world. It won't be easy. But we can't disregard the refugees who are still starving in Africa or the employees who have a slender income in the Third World countries any more.
Capitalism survived among many social ideologies. And the invisible hand that can move money of the world is moving our economy. But are it just right things these corporation of capitalism? The documentary that we watched in our class (The Corporation, 2003) show us the scene of capitalism. The brands wrapped by commercial are familiar with us. And They have dominated us little by little. Can we blame them because they caused economic polarization and took resources indiscriminately? I think that we should never forget that we are also the part of capitalism.
In conclusion, I think that economic globalization is a viewpoint of macroscopic economy. However, it has many problems nowadays. We should think about the hidden side of economic globalization.
2. At the end of the class, I have many doubtful points about the conception of globalization that we have just thought positive. I think we should keep approaching these problems with interests.
3. I wonder how can we change this enormous world. It won't be easy. But we can't disregard the refugees who are still starving in Africa or the employees who have a slender income in the Third World countries any more.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Korea Herald) [Editorial] Move to join TPP
[Editorial] Move to join TPP
Korea needs to embrace regional bloc
Korea, ending a protracted deliberation process, is near to joining negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral agreement to liberalize trade in the Asia-Pacific. It said last Friday it would make a final decision after talks with the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and eight other negotiating partners.
The forthcoming consultations are little more than a formality, given that Korea, the eighth-largest trader in the world, has long been urged by the United States to join the negotiations on lowering trade barriers among 12 nations that make up 38 percent of the world’s economy. Korea, which already has free trade agreements with the United States, the European Union and other economies, has had to weigh potential gains from the TPP against potential losses.
Korea has detractors both domestically and abroad. Farmers are at the forefront of the domestic groups that are against the proposal to promote regional economic integration through the TPP. The opponents are worried about the wider opening of the domestic agricultural market and the lowering of protective barriers, both tariff and non-tariff.
Before making a final decision, Korea has had to take caution, as the TPP is perceived by China to be a U.S.-led strategy to encircle the second-largest economy in the world. Korea has needed to consider the potential impact its membership of the TPP would have on its relations with China, its largest trading partner. Moreover, it is in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement with China.
But it is hard for Korea to ignore the potential benefits. According to one study, the lowering of tariff barriers alone will raise its gross domestic product by 2.5 percent or higher in real terms by 2025. Such huge benefits are reportedly attractive to China as well.
Korea, a nation poor in natural resources, has no choice other than to embrace the new trade order that is emerging from the TPP. Korea needs to expand its trade of goods and services and encourage foreign direct investment by joining what is shaping up to be the most powerful trade bloc in the world, if it wishes to pull itself out of the low-growth mode. While pursuing membership to the TPP, however, it will have to make efforts to resolve conflicts with its detractors.
The forthcoming consultations are little more than a formality, given that Korea, the eighth-largest trader in the world, has long been urged by the United States to join the negotiations on lowering trade barriers among 12 nations that make up 38 percent of the world’s economy. Korea, which already has free trade agreements with the United States, the European Union and other economies, has had to weigh potential gains from the TPP against potential losses.
Korea has detractors both domestically and abroad. Farmers are at the forefront of the domestic groups that are against the proposal to promote regional economic integration through the TPP. The opponents are worried about the wider opening of the domestic agricultural market and the lowering of protective barriers, both tariff and non-tariff.
Before making a final decision, Korea has had to take caution, as the TPP is perceived by China to be a U.S.-led strategy to encircle the second-largest economy in the world. Korea has needed to consider the potential impact its membership of the TPP would have on its relations with China, its largest trading partner. Moreover, it is in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement with China.
But it is hard for Korea to ignore the potential benefits. According to one study, the lowering of tariff barriers alone will raise its gross domestic product by 2.5 percent or higher in real terms by 2025. Such huge benefits are reportedly attractive to China as well.
Korea, a nation poor in natural resources, has no choice other than to embrace the new trade order that is emerging from the TPP. Korea needs to expand its trade of goods and services and encourage foreign direct investment by joining what is shaping up to be the most powerful trade bloc in the world, if it wishes to pull itself out of the low-growth mode. While pursuing membership to the TPP, however, it will have to make efforts to resolve conflicts with its detractors.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
경향신문 기사) TPP는 또 하나의 한·미 FTA
11월15일 산업통상자원부가 주최한 환태평양 FTA 환태평양경제동반자협정(TPP) 공청회가 열렸다. 하지만 시작부터 어디서 많이 보던 광경이 연출되었다. 회의장 옆방을 입추의 여지 없이 가득 채운 경찰들, 그리고 회의장 뒷좌석의 용역들, 모두 힘을 모아 소리치는 농민들을 밖으로 내몬다. 2006년 2월 한·미 FTA 공청회의 ‘데자뷰’! 이해당사자들의 목소리를 들어야 할 공청회의 연단에는 막상 노동자, 농민, 중소기업, 환경단체 등은 눈을 씻고 봐도 없다. 공청회의 프레임도 찬반이 아닌, 찬성 중 ‘지금 하자’와 ‘좀 있다 하자’로 짜여 있다.
‘신중론’으로 포장된, 실은 찬성론의 한 변종이라 할 ‘좀 있다 하자’론은 그 근거로 이런 것을 들고 있다. 첫째, 실익이 미미하며, 둘째, 한·일 FTA가 TPP의 핵심이라고 할 때 제조업 피해가 상당하며, 셋째, 중국을 자극해 한·중 FTA에 부담이 된다. ‘지금 하자’론에 비해 ‘좀 있다 하자’론이 그나마 좀 더 현실적인 판단을 하고 있는 셈이다.
하지만 이나 저나 TPP의 위험성에 귀를 막고 있다는 점에서는 별반 차이가 없다. 다른 무엇보다 며칠 전 폭로된 TPP 지적재산권 챕터는 통상조약이 어떻게 국내 민주적 절차를 우회해서 초국적 자본의 이익을 극단적으로 대변하는지, 또 이를 통해 민주주의가 어떻게 공동화될 수 있는지를 여실히 보여준다. 알려진 바, 지재권 챕터의 감시 및 집행 규정 등은 미국, 한국 등이 서명했지만 유럽의회가 거부함으로써 무산된 ‘위조품 거래방지협정’(ACTA)’이나 ‘온라인 저작권 침해금지 법’(SOPA) 등에서 다시 긁어 모은 것이다. 만일 미 의회가 새로운 패스트트랙 법안을 입법해 수정없는 찬반만을 물어 TPP가 통과된다면, 이는 입법부를 우회하더라도 얼마든지 초국적 기업의 이익이 관철될 수 있음을 의미한다.
실제 TPP는 밀실에서 극비리에 추진되어 왔고, 미 의회조차도 사실상 배제한 채 오직 600여명의 미기업 자문역만이 협정문 작업에 참여한 것으로 알려져 있다. 문안작업에 참여한 미무역대표부 산하 지재권부문 산업통상자문위(ITAC) 위원들의 면면을 보면 왜 극비리에 협상이 추진되었는지 이해될 만 하다. 이들 비밀취급인가를 받은 16명의 위원은 GE, 존슨앤존슨, 시스코, AT&T, 영화 음반 등 엔터테인먼트, 생명공학, 제약업계 등 이익의 대변자로 구성되고 단 한명의 공익대변자도 없다. TPP는 그러므로 할리우드, 미 초국적 제약업계, 미 IT업계를 위한 극단적 보호주의의 다른 이름으로 자유무역과는 애당초 무관한 것이다.
더불어 작년에 유출되었던 투자챕터를 분석해 보면 TPP의 성격이 더욱 분명해진다. 핵심은 역시나 저 끝없는 논란거리인 투자자-정부 소송제(ISD)라 하겠다. ISD는 TPP 제12장 2절에 배치되어 있다. 특기할 만한 것은 첫째, 호주만은 ISD 수용을 거부했다는 점과 둘째, 무분별한 자본이동을 규제하기 위해 칠레가 중앙은행 외환의무예치제(URR) 권한을 확보했다는 점이다. 쉽게 말해 혹 우리가 TPP에 가입하더라도 호주정부를 상대로 ISD소송을 제기할 수 없으며, 칠레에 투자할 때는 투자액의 상당분을 칠레중앙은행에 무이자로 예치해야 한다는 말이다. 아무튼 분명한 것은 TPP로 인해 아·태지역국가 공공정책의 무력화 위험이 현저히 증대될 것이라는 점이다.
TPP는 그 자체 ‘높은 수준의 포괄적’ FTA이기 때문에 농업을 포함해 개별산업에 미치는 영향을 가늠하기가 쉽지 않다. 특히 사실상의 새로운 변수는 일본이기 때문에, 한·중 FTA로 인해 중하위 중소기업 대부분이 영향권에 포함된다면 TPP로 인해 자동차를 포함한 대기업도 상당한 충격을 받을 수밖에 없다. 한·미 FTA가 TPP의 한 원형이라고 볼 때, TPP는 곧 한·미 FTA가 환태평양 전역에 확산되는 것을 의미한다. 하지만 여기서 우리의 TPP 가입은 결국 쌀개방과 제조업 주력의 피해를 포함시켜, 한·미 FTA를 한 번 더 체결하는 것과 다를 바 없다
.
이해영 | 한신대 교수·국제관계학 2013-11-17
‘신중론’으로 포장된, 실은 찬성론의 한 변종이라 할 ‘좀 있다 하자’론은 그 근거로 이런 것을 들고 있다. 첫째, 실익이 미미하며, 둘째, 한·일 FTA가 TPP의 핵심이라고 할 때 제조업 피해가 상당하며, 셋째, 중국을 자극해 한·중 FTA에 부담이 된다. ‘지금 하자’론에 비해 ‘좀 있다 하자’론이 그나마 좀 더 현실적인 판단을 하고 있는 셈이다.
실제 TPP는 밀실에서 극비리에 추진되어 왔고, 미 의회조차도 사실상 배제한 채 오직 600여명의 미기업 자문역만이 협정문 작업에 참여한 것으로 알려져 있다. 문안작업에 참여한 미무역대표부 산하 지재권부문 산업통상자문위(ITAC) 위원들의 면면을 보면 왜 극비리에 협상이 추진되었는지 이해될 만 하다. 이들 비밀취급인가를 받은 16명의 위원은 GE, 존슨앤존슨, 시스코, AT&T, 영화 음반 등 엔터테인먼트, 생명공학, 제약업계 등 이익의 대변자로 구성되고 단 한명의 공익대변자도 없다. TPP는 그러므로 할리우드, 미 초국적 제약업계, 미 IT업계를 위한 극단적 보호주의의 다른 이름으로 자유무역과는 애당초 무관한 것이다.
더불어 작년에 유출되었던 투자챕터를 분석해 보면 TPP의 성격이 더욱 분명해진다. 핵심은 역시나 저 끝없는 논란거리인 투자자-정부 소송제(ISD)라 하겠다. ISD는 TPP 제12장 2절에 배치되어 있다. 특기할 만한 것은 첫째, 호주만은 ISD 수용을 거부했다는 점과 둘째, 무분별한 자본이동을 규제하기 위해 칠레가 중앙은행 외환의무예치제(URR) 권한을 확보했다는 점이다. 쉽게 말해 혹 우리가 TPP에 가입하더라도 호주정부를 상대로 ISD소송을 제기할 수 없으며, 칠레에 투자할 때는 투자액의 상당분을 칠레중앙은행에 무이자로 예치해야 한다는 말이다. 아무튼 분명한 것은 TPP로 인해 아·태지역국가 공공정책의 무력화 위험이 현저히 증대될 것이라는 점이다.
TPP는 그 자체 ‘높은 수준의 포괄적’ FTA이기 때문에 농업을 포함해 개별산업에 미치는 영향을 가늠하기가 쉽지 않다. 특히 사실상의 새로운 변수는 일본이기 때문에, 한·중 FTA로 인해 중하위 중소기업 대부분이 영향권에 포함된다면 TPP로 인해 자동차를 포함한 대기업도 상당한 충격을 받을 수밖에 없다. 한·미 FTA가 TPP의 한 원형이라고 볼 때, TPP는 곧 한·미 FTA가 환태평양 전역에 확산되는 것을 의미한다. 하지만 여기서 우리의 TPP 가입은 결국 쌀개방과 제조업 주력의 피해를 포함시켜, 한·미 FTA를 한 번 더 체결하는 것과 다를 바 없다
.
이해영 | 한신대 교수·국제관계학 2013-11-17
Blog 4. What is the relation between economics and globalization?
Transnational operation(TNC) is a key to understand economic globalization. Colonial and merchant capitalist created vast business empires at a world scale.First firm to engage in manufacturing production outside their home country didn't emerge until the second half of the nineteenth century, but it has drastically been increased since 1914 in 50 years. We also can see what's called global corporation like General Motors or Toyota. In this globalized world, there is an increasing diversity of TNCs. The reason for TNC activity could be seen as either market-oriented investment or asset-oriented investment. The first one is for companies which have reached saturation point in their domestic market to expand their market to abroad. The second one happened because of geographical unevenness. When a company wants to do TNC activity, they have two major ways. The first one ins 'greenfield' investment which is simply the building of totally new facilities which certainly is a risky venture. The second one is to enter into a strategic collaboration with one or more other firms like Motorola/IBM/Siemens/Toshiba developing new generation of memory chips together. It is important to think of networks of these kind of company or activity because TNCs are way more difficult to coordinate and control then single firms. Many countries made their time by joining and creating international organization such as EU or NAFTA. Asian countries which don't have that strong organization are also trying to make their own one. Living in the world where TNCs are very active is somewhat shaky though and we can see that confusion in WTO. This phenomenon also has brought some issues of how governments should be dealing with this, companies from other countries selling products in the country.
This society is running by market -theory and many people believe 'invisible hand and they think through competition, everything will get better and better. So they are open to agreement between countries like FTA for us. I still haven't been able to decide where to stand in terms of this matter because it is so complex and hard to do so. People still argue about that too. The only thing I am sure of is that TNC should head to more people's happiness. I recently watched a TED video which I also posted in this blog about economic gap in China. I think economic globalization should be contributing to distribute to the poor what we have already not helping the rich have more. My another thought is that economic globalization is closely related to political globalization because it works by the power of each government. That is inevitable but bitter fact.
This society is running by market -theory and many people believe 'invisible hand and they think through competition, everything will get better and better. So they are open to agreement between countries like FTA for us. I still haven't been able to decide where to stand in terms of this matter because it is so complex and hard to do so. People still argue about that too. The only thing I am sure of is that TNC should head to more people's happiness. I recently watched a TED video which I also posted in this blog about economic gap in China. I think economic globalization should be contributing to distribute to the poor what we have already not helping the rich have more. My another thought is that economic globalization is closely related to political globalization because it works by the power of each government. That is inevitable but bitter fact.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)