• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 1991

Market liberalization progressing simultaneously with high and rapidly rising domestic wages has created an adverse business environment for domestic firms. Korean firms are losing their international competitiveness in comparison to firms from LDC(Less Developed Countries) in low-tech industries. In high-tech industries, domestic firms without government protection (which is impossible due to the liberalization policy and the current international status of the Korean economy) are in a disadvantaged position relative to firms from advanced countries. This paper examines the division of roles between the private sector and the government in order to achieve a successful structural adjustment, which has become the impending industrial policy issue caused by high domestic wages, on the one hand, and the opening of domestic markets, on the other. The micro foundation of the economy-wide structural adjustment is actually the restructuring of business portfolios at the firm level. The firm-level business restructuring means that firms in low-value-added businesses or with declining market niches establish new major businesses in higher value-added segments or growing market niches. The adjustment of the business structure at the firm level can only be accomplished by accumulating firm-specific managerial assets necessary to establish a new business structure. This can be done through learning-by-doing in the whole system of management, including research and development, manufacturing, and marketing. Therefore, the voluntary cooperation among the people in the company is essential for making the cost of the learning process lower than that at the competing companies. Hence, firms that attempt to restructure their major businesses need to induce corporate-wide participation through innovations in organization and management, encourage innovative corporate culture, and maintain cooperative labor unions. Policy discussions on structural adjustments usually regard firms as a black box behind a few macro variables. But in reality, firm activities are not flows of materials but relationships among human resources. The growth potential of companies are embodied in the human resources of the firm; the balance of interest among stockholders, managers, and workers of the company' brings the accumulation of the company's core competencies. Therefore, policymakers and economists shoud change their old concept of the firm as a technological black box which produces a marketable commodities. Firms should be regarded as coalitions of interest groups such as stockholders, managers, and workers. Consequently the discussion on the structural adjustment both at the macroeconomic level and the firm level should be based on this new paradigm of understanding firms. The government's role in reducing the cost of structural adjustment and supporting should the creation of new industries emphasize the following: First, government must promote the competition in domestic markets by revising laws related to antitrust policy, bankruptcy, and the promotion of small and medium-sized companies. General consensus on the limitations of government intervention and the merit of deregulation should be sought among policymakers and people in the business world. In the age of internationalization, nation-specific competitive advantages cannot be exclusively in favor of domestic firms. The international competitiveness of a domestic firm derives from the firm-specific core competencies which can be accumulated by internal investment and organization of the firm. Second, government must build up a solid infrastructure of production factors including capital, technology, manpower, and information. Structural adjustment often entails bankruptcies and partial waste of resources. However, it is desirable for the government not to try to sustain marginal businesses, but to support the diversification or restructuring of businesses by assisting in factor creation. Institutional support for venture businesses needs to be improved, especially in the financing system since many investment projects in venture businesses are highly risky, even though they are very promising. The proportion of low-value added production processes and declining industries should be reduced by promoting foreign direct investment and factory automation. Moreover, one cannot over-emphasize the importance of future-oriented labor policies to be based on the new paradigm of understanding firm activities. The old laws and instititutions related to labor unions need to be reformed. Third, government must improve the regimes related to money, banking, and the tax system to change business practices dependent on government protection or undesirable in view of the evolution of the Korean economy as a whole. To prevent rational business decisions from contradicting to the interest of the economy as a whole, government should influence the business environment, not the business itself.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.47
• /
• pp.7-36
• /
• 2016

The security providers industry, often referred to as an industry with unconfined growth ceiling, has entered a remarkable mass-growth phase since the 1980. In the modern era, private-sector security increasingly cover functions relating to general security awareness (including counter-terrorism) in partnership with State bodies, and the scale of operations continue to accelerate, relative to the expanding roles. In the era of pluralisation of policing, there has been widening efforts pursued to develop a range of regulatory strategies internationally in order to manage such growth and development. To date, in South Korea, a diverse set of industry review studies have been conducted. However, the analyses have been conventionally confined to North America, Britain, Germany and Japan, while developments in other world regions remain unassessed. This article is intended to inform the drivers and determinants of regulatory reforms in Australia, and examine the effectiveness of the main pillars of licensing innovations. Over the past decades, the Australian regime has undergone a wave of reforms in response to emerging issues, and in recognition of the industry as a 'public good' due to underpopulation density and the resulting security challenges. The focus of review in this study was on providing a detailed review of the regulatory approach taken by Australia that has expanded police-private security co-operation since the 1980s. The emphasis was on examining the core pillars of risk management strategies and oversight practices progressed to date and evaluating areas of possible improvement in regulation relative to South Korea. Overall, this study has identified three key features of Australian regime: (1) close checks on questionable close associates (including fingerprinting), (2) power of inspection and seizure without search warrant, (3) the 'three strikes' scheme. The rise of the private security presence in day-to-day policing operations means that industry warrant some intervening government-sponsored initiative. The overall lessons learnt from the Australian case was taken into account in determining the following checks and balances that would provide the ideal setting for the best-practice arrangement: (1) regulatory measure should be evaluated against a set of well-defined indicators, such as the merits of different enforcement tools for each given risk, (2) information about regulatory impacts should be analysed by a specialist research institute, (3) regulators should be innovative in applying a range of strategies available to them by employing a mixture of compliance promotional strategies, and adjust the mix as required.