KJC Korea
Journal Central

China, Korea, and Japan have actively implemented institutional reform of non-profit sector since the late 1990th. At the same time, they have introduced or re-arranged a various form of cross-sectoral organizations such as social enterprises, cooperatives, local community organizations. This paper discusses how the traditional non-profit sector has been transformed as a result of the aforementioned multi-dimensional institutional reforms in the three countries. Through the comparative and comprehensive analysis of the relevant institutions, this paper points out several important characteristics concerning the overall non-profit corporation system, the administrative procedures for establishing corporations, the institutional design for the non-profit and for-profit boundary and the governmental and non-governmental boundary. While the three countries have commonly expanded the realm of non-profit sector by introducing various hybrid organizations since the 1990th, they have developed different institutional devices in regard to the respective cross-sectoral boundaries.

China’s nonalignment has been a foreign policy since her reformation and opening up, and it is still effective for now. However, with domestic and foreign environmental changes, alliance has been fully discussed among Chinese intellectuals in recent years. This thesis deals with their discussions on alliance in three categories, namely, alliance, nonalignment and quasi-alliance. In the first category, I deal with the discussions on alliance, in which alliance is emphasized by questioning the effectiveness of current nonalignment in the process of China’s rise. In the second category, I deal with the discussions on nonalignment, in which the effectiveness of current nonalignment is supported. In the third category, I deal with the discussions on quasi-alliance, which is neither alliances nor nonalignment and is a strategic thinking in connection with China’s current diplomacy. Alliance has been criticized or supported by Chinese intellectuals using various concept and analytical skills. In this way, the discussions on alliance have been expanded. In this respect, the discussions on alliance can diversity China’s diplomatic options regardless of her foreign diplomacy. Although nonalignment has been a China’s foreign policy for now, the discussions on alliance reflect the China’s current diplomatic dilemma, and make it possible to understand Chinese intellectuals’ strategic thinking.

During the 16th to 18th century, the world exchanged with each other through the ocean, and sweet potatoes were transferred to the oriental society in the process that the western powers advanced to the east. The point where sweet potatoes first were transferred was Nanao-island(南澳島), China in 1584. Afterwards, Ryukyue, Japan in 1597, Tsushima in 1715, and Joseon in 1763. The characteristic that appeared in the process of transferring sweet potatoes to the orient three countries was moving slowly by using Island area as stepping-stones, which were continued one by one in the Southeast Asia, and all of those who took the key role of transferring sweet potatoes were maritime powers. Therefore, by investigating the inflow process of sweet potatoes, each of East Asian nation's awareness on ocean and marine policy of that time could be comprehended. China was positioned as the most profitable position in sweet potatoes inflow, in geographical, economic, and political aspects, however due to the continuous the ban on maritime trade policy(海禁政策) during the Ming·Qing dynasty, Fujian Province(福建省)’s sweet potatoes could not be transferred to Zhejiang Province(浙江省)’s Joushan-island(舟山島), rather it resulted in reimportation from Japan. This is not mere a characteristic that appeared in the inflow of sweet potatoes, but it can be said to be a symbolic event that the ban on maritime trade policy acted as an obstacle in accepting advanced civilization. In case of Joseon, the nation enforced stronger the ban on maritime trade policy than Ming·Qing dynasty in the frame of tribute installation system, and became the most unknown hermit nation in the world, by implementing only limited exchange with China by land. Eventually, the sweet potatoes which could have arrived in five days during Koryo Dynasty, took 179 years to arrive in the mid and late Joseon Dynasty. In case of Japan, it implemented an open maritime polity with the spirit to learn from barbarians, excluding Hua Yi spirit(華夷精神), so that advanced civilization e.g. sweet potatoes, etc. could arrive earlier. Finally, each nation’s awareness on ocean resulted in the difference in the view of the acceptance of important crops as sweet potatoes, i.e. advanced civilization, which eventually divided destiny of each nation.

This paper discussed about the process of Chinese Tangyue’s settling into Japanese Togaku once after it was introduced to Japan as an exemplary case of cultural transformation in ancient East Asia. Around in the 8th century A.D., there was an active cultural exchange between China and Japan, and the transplantation of Chinese Tangyue into Japanese Togaku is a good example. However, a close examination proves that there was some distortion that resulted in cultural transformation in the process of introduction and acceptance between both countries. The concrete settling process of Chinese Jingyunyue, Botou, Ganzhou into Japanese Kyounraku, Bato, Kanshu respectively is as follows. First, Chinese Jingyunyue was originally a dance item accompanied by music, but was transformed as a music piece without dance called Kyounraku in Japan. Second, Botou, a dance/music piece based on an historical episode introduced from far western region from China, shows a conspicuous similarity with Japanese Bato. Third, it is difficult to trace the specific nature of Chinese Ganzhou due to the lack of historical records except the title. Meanwhile, Japanese Kanshu was transformed into a totally different form from the original.

This paper critically reviews debates over Korean development model, which attracts increasing attention in academia as well as policy circles. We classify various debates into three categories. The first debate is about the Korean model from mid-1960s to 80s called ‘East Asian developmental state,’ and there has been a consensus that the key characteristics of the model fit well with Korean experiences of state-centric economic developments, export-oriented industrialization strategies, etc. The second debate is about the properties of ‘post-developmental state,’ and this debate is directly related to how we understand the drastic changes of the Korean political, economic, social system after the 1997-98 East Asian Financial Crises. In spite of disagreements among scholars, it is fair to define the current political/economic/social system as a neoliberal system. As for the final debate, the future development model of Korea, we examine the three most representative development models. Among the neo-developmental state model, the corporatist social-democratic welfare state model, and the regulatory state model, we find the last one is the most realistic and politically viable option, given political, economic, social, and cultural constraints and conditions under which a future model should be operative.

This study examines the relationship between trade liberalization and economic growth in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations member countries by using time series data from 1971 to 2010. We extend the cross-country static panel analysis to a dynamic model to capture the persistent effect of trade liberalization for a longer period. The results of static and dynamic panel analyses are consistent in that trade liberalization, that is, exposure to exports and imports, is not a critical factor of economic growth and productivity improvement in ASEAN countries. In addition, we examine the causal relationship between exports, imports, and economic growth based on a Vector Error Correction model, Granger causality test, and Generalized Impulse Response Function(GIRF) analysis. The results show there is weak evidence in support of the export-led as well as import-led growth hypothesis—instead, a growth-led trade pattern is distinct in most ASEAN countries. In addition, GIRF analysis reinforces the internally driven growth hypothesis that economic growth in ASEAN countries is driven by internal factors rather than international trade.