남북한 경제협력의 불가능 삼각정리와 실천적 협력방안

한홍열 사단법인 코리아컨센서스연구원 2018 분석과 대안 Vol.2 No.1

Models of South-North Korean economic integration have the problem of circular reasoning. While many studies argue that South-North Korean economic integration would contribute to alleviate security risks in the Korean peninsular, they emphasize the success of any economic model of inter-Korean economic integration is subject to favorable geo-political and security environment. It is a failure in distinguishing between goals and constraints. After identifying three major goals of South-North Korean economic cooperation, this study shows the trilemma among the goals; they are 1) formation of a complete economic community, 2) maintaining independent sovereignty of the two Koreas, 3) promotion of mutual economic interests. The trilemma suggests that it is theoretically impossible to achieve the above three goals at the same time. Only two goals are achievable simultaneously. This study argues that the most practical option is to pursue the combination of goals 2) and 3) considering the complex political and security environment around the Korean peninsular. Recognizing that North Korea is the least developed country in the Northeast Asia region, South Korea’s initiatives for inter-Korean economic cooperation should focus on assisting industrialization and integration of the North Korea economy into the Northeast Asian regional production sharing structure. In view of the ‘flying geese model’ of the sequential industrialization in the region, the least developed economic status of North Korea can partially be explained by its failure to participate in the production network in the region as well as lack of effective implementation of appropriate industrial policy. Therefore, promotion of industrialization of North Korea should be the immediate goal of economic cooperation between North and South Korea. It is an interesting fact that North Korea has rapidly expanded its apparel exports in recent years. It could mean that the North Korean economy is actively responding to the dynamics of international comparative advantage structure, although the production activities are limited to exports to China since the closure of the Gaesung Industrial Complex. The recent increase in apparel export is a starting point for incorporating the Easy Import Substitution fulfilling both domestic and neighboring regional demand of North Korea. It could help integrate North Korea’s industry into the production network of Northeast Asia. An immediate policy implication is that the economic cooperation between the two Koreas should focus on facilitating this process and supporting North Korea’s industrial policy through South Korea’s contribution of capital, technology, and service intermediary inputs.

FTAAP as an APEC Process to Achieve Bogor Goal

한홍열 대외경제정책연구원 2007 East Asian Economic Review Vol.11 No.2

FTAAP became an official agenda of APEC. APEC needs a credible trade agenda to restore its identity and FTAAP would ultimately achieve it. However, APEC has to abandon its working mechanism in order to form a WTO-consistent regional agreement and an attempt to establish FTAAP may jeopardize APEC. In this paper, we have explored an acceptable type of FTAAP for APEC without abandoning its basic principles. APEC retains the Bogor goal as its ultimate goal while it regards FTAAP as an APEC process to achieve the Bogor goal. It is a process in the sense that FTAAP is a mechanism based on APEC principles in which APEC members provide specific commitments between 2010-20. The Bogor goal is achieved after APEC successfully implements FTAAP. FTAAP as a WTO consistent RTA is impossible under the working mechanism of APEC. The APEC-type FTAAP could function as a vehicle to move APEC toward the Bogor goal by establishing a credible trade agenda. Although FTAAP as an APEC process may contain lower commitments than even a low-quality RTA, it would help revive APEC’s credibility greatly. There are several minimum requirements for an acceptable FTAAP. First, FTAAP needs to contain some tangible TILF initiative on-board measures. Second, APEC should keep “voluntarism” if it wants to avoid disintegration of APEC in the process of implementation of FTAAP. Third, open regionalism needs to be kept because we are actually re-defining FTAAP.

구조변화 속도와 경제성장에 관한 소론: 한국과 일본의 사례를 중심으로

한홍열 사단법인 코리아컨센서스연구원 2025 분석과 대안 Vol.9 No.2

본 연구에서는 1970년대 이후 최근에 이르기까지 양국의 구조변화 속도 추이를 추적하였고 양국 모두에서 2000년대 이후 그 속도가 빠르게 감퇴하고 있음을 확인하였다. 현대 세계경제에서 빠르게 산업화에 성공한 두 국가가 근년에 있어서는 의미 있는 산업구조 변화를 이뤄내지 못하고 있음을 의미한다. 본 연구에 의하면 구조변화의 속도는 경제성장에 매우 강력하게 작용한다. 구조변화의 속도는 자원의 효율적 이동과정에서 발생하는 매우 다양한 효과를 대리하는 변수이기 때문일 것이다. 이러한 평가를 받아들인다면 구조변화 속도를 한 경제의 혁신 수준을 대표하는 변수로 사용하는 것도 가능하다. 따라서 양국 경제에서 성장률 정체 역시 구조변화 지체에 따른 필연적인 결과일 가능성이 크다. 또한 본 연구에서는 두 나라 경제의 구조변화가 있다고 하더라도 세계의 무역구조 변화를 기준으로 볼 때 그 방향성을 같이 하는지에 대하여 상당한 의문이 제기되었다. Economic development is a dynamic process involving both structural transformation and economic growth. Therefore the speed of structural change carries significant implications as it shapes the relative economic performance of nations. The current stagnant economic situations of Japan and Korea can largely be attributed to the slowing speed of structural change. This study traces structural change in both countries since the 1970s. The study identifies a notable deceleration of structural changes in both economies since the 2000s. The finding suggests that both economies have failed to upgrade their industrial structures significantly while the world economy has experienced industrial and technological transformation. This study also confirmed that the speed of structural change strongly influences economic growth. As the speed of structural changes reflects the capacity of an economy to allocate resource efficiently, it could be a good candidate index for innovation. Therefore growth stagnation in both economies may be an inevitable result of delayed structural transformation, suggesting that Korea and Japan may face the “ advanced income trap”. While both countries have pursued industrial policy reform in one way or another, those efforts appear ineffective in producing real change when measured by the speed of industry structure in this study.

原産地規程의 經濟的 意義와 國際規範의 制定 現況

韓弘烈 법무부 국제법무정책과 1995 통상법률 Vol.- No.5

APEC의 地域間協定體性에 관한 考察

韓弘烈 법무부 1996 통상법률 Vol.- No.9

[초록없음]

傳統手工業의 傳承과 現狀 - 陶磁器手工業을 중심으로

韓鴻烈 충북대학교 중원문화연구소 2000 중원문화연구 Vol.4 No.-

WTO 原産地規程 協商의 現況과 展望

韓弘烈 법무부 1999 통상법률 Vol.- No.29

[초록없음]

소규모 개방국가, 키르기스 공화국의 산업화 정책의 방향

한홍열 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2016 중소연구 Vol.40 No.3

The Kyrgyz Republic, a small open economy in the Central Asia, has not been successful enough to create industrial base for a long-term economic development in spite of its high expectation from its accession to the WTO from both policy makers and general public. The experiences of neighboring countries, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, provides useful reference for industrial policy for Kyrgyz Republic for successful implementation in the future. Kazakhstan adopts a seemingly conflicting policies of market opening and active policy intervention in the process of industrialization at the same time. Uzbekistan is a classical example of inward-looking industrial policy heavily applying import substitution and foreign exchange policies. However, considering non-reversible nature of the WTO membership, the Kyrgyz Republic’s policy choice lies not in the whether it should pursue active industrial policy, but in to what extent the government involve in the process of industrialization. 키르기스 공화국의 경제적 현실은 소규모 국가들의 적극적 대외개방 정책이 산업화에 대한 중요한 시사점을 제공한다. 적극적인 개방정책을 수행한 소규모 개발도상국의 대부분은 여전히 의미있는 산업화에 성공하지 못한 것이 현실이다. 이런 점에서, 우즈베키스탄과 카자흐스탄과 같이 비교적 적극적인 산업정책을 활용하여 성공적으로 추격과정을 수행한 국가들은 중요한 정책적 참고가 될 수 있다. 카자흐스탄은 대외적으로 개방적 체제를 유지하는 동시에 정부는 적극적으로 산업화에 개입하는 전략을 채택하였다. 반면에 우즈베키스탄의 경우, 적극적인 산업정책 뿐만아니라 대외적으로도 매우 폐쇄적인 정책을 동시에 사용하였다. 우즈베키스탄 패러덕스로 표현되는 우즈베키스탄의 경제적 성장과 안정성은 적어도 산업화 초기 단계의 최빈개도국에 현실적인 시사점을 제공한다. 즉, 키르기스 공화국의 경우, 대외정책의 불가역적 성격을 감안하면 산업화 과정에 정부의 적극적인 개입 여부가 아니라 개입의 정도와 정책수단의 우선 순위가 보다 중요한 정책과제로 보인다.

WTO 原産地規程 協商의 現況과 展望

韓弘烈 법무부 국제법무정책과 1999 국제법무연구 Vol.- No.29

原産地規程의 經濟的 意義와 國際規範의 制定 現況

韓弘烈 법무부 국제법무정책과 1995 국제법무연구 Vol.- No.5