• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2024

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology is recognized as a key technology that will determine future national competitiveness, competition for AI technology and industry promotion policies in major countries is intensifying. This study aims to present implications for domestic policy making by analyzing the policies of major countries on the start-up of AI companies, which are the basis of the AI industry ecosystem. The top four countries and the EU for the number of new investment attraction companies in the 2023 AI Index announced by the HAI Research Institute at Stanford University in the United States were selected, The United States enacted the National AI Initiative Act (NAIIA) in 2021. Through this law, The US Government is promoting continued leadership in the United States in AI R&D, developing reliable AI systems in the public and private sectors, building an AI system ecosystem across society, and strengthening DB management and access to AI policies conducted by all federal agencies. In the 14th Five-Year (2021-2025) Plan and 2035 Long-term Goals held in 2021, China has specified AI as the first of the seven strategic high-tech technologies, and is developing policies aimed at becoming the No. 1 AI global powerhouse by 2030. The UK is investing in innovative R&D companies through the 'Future Fund Breakthrough' in 2021, and is expanding related investments by preparing national strategies to leap forward as AI leaders, such as the implementation plan of the national AI strategy in 2022. Israel is supporting technology investment in start-up companies centered on the Innovation Agency, and the Innovation Agency is leading mid- to long-term investments of 2 to 15 years and regulatory reforms for new technologies. The EU is strengthening its digital innovation hub network and creating the InvestEU (European Strategic Investment Fund) and AI investment fund to support the use of AI by SMEs. This study aims to contribute to analyzing the policies of major foreign countries in making AI company start-up policies and providing a basis for Korea's strategy search. The limitations of the study are the limitations of the countries to be analyzed and the failure to attempt comparative analysis of the policy environments of the countries under the same conditions.

• Economic and Environmental Geology
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.73-87
• /
• 1975

Regional unconformities have been used as boundaries of major stratigraphic units in Korea. The term "synthem" has already been propsed for formal unconformity-bounded stratigraphic units of maximum magnitude (ISSC, 1974). The unconformity-based classification of the strata in the cratonic area in Korea comprises in ascending order the Kyerim, $Sangw{\check{o}}n$, $Jos{\check{o}}n$, $Py{\check{o}}ngan$, Daedong, and $Ky{\check{o}}ngsang$ Synthems, and the Cenozoic Erathem. The unconformites separating them from each other are either orogenic or epeirogenic (and vertical tectonic). The sub-$Sangw{\check{o}}n$ unconformity is a non-conformity above the basement complex in Korea. The unconformities between the $Sangw{\check{o}}n$, $Jos{\check{o}}n$, and $Py{\check{o}}ngan$ Synthems are disconformities denoting late Precambrian and Paleozoic crustal quiescence in Korea. The unconformities between the $Py{\check{o}}ngan$, Daedong, and $Ky{\check{o}}ngsang$ Synthems are angular unconformities representing Mesozoic orogenies. The bounding unconformities of the $Ky{\check{o}}ngsang$ Synthem involve non-conformable parts overlying the Jurassic and late Cretaceous granitic rocks.