• Strategy21
• /
• s.37
• /
• pp.104-143
• /
• 2015

China's new grand strategy, the "One Belt, One Road Initiative" (also Belt Road Initiative, or BRI) has two primary components: Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the "Silk Road Economic Belt" in September 2013 during a visit to Kazakhstan, and the "21^st Century Maritime Silk Route Economic Belt" in a speech to the Indonesian parliament the following month. The BRI is intended to supply China with energy and new markets, and also to integrate the countries of Central Asia, the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), and the Indian Ocean Region - though not Northeast Asia - into the "Chinese Dream". The project will be supported by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), due to open in 2016 with 57 founding members from all around the world, and China has already promised US$ 50 billion in seed funding. China's vision includes networks of energy pipelines, railways, sea port facilities and logistics hubs; these will have obvious commercial benefits, but also huge geopolitical significance. China seems to have two distinct aims: externally, to restore its historical sphere of influence; and internally, to cope with income inequalities by creating middle-class jobs through enhanced trade and the broader development of its economy. In South Korea, opinion on the BRI is sharply polarized. Economic and industrial interests, including Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL), support South Korean involvement in the BRI and closer economic interactions with China. They see how the BRI fits nicely with President Park Geun-hye's Eurasia Initiative, and anticipate significant commercial benefits for South Korea from better connections to energy-rich Russia and the consumer markets of Europe and Central Asia. They welcome the prospect of reduced trade barriers between China and South Korea, and of improved transport infrastructure, and perceive the political risks as manageable. But some ardently pro-US pundits worry that the political risks of the BRI are too high. They cast doubt on the feasibility of implementing the BRI, and warn that although it has been portrayed primarily in economic terms, it actually reveals a crucial Chinese geopolitical strategy. They are fearful of China's growing regional dominance, and worried that the BRI is ultimately a means to supplant the prevailing US-led regional security structure and restore the Middle Kingdom order, with China as the only power that matters in the region. According to this view, once China has complete control of the regional logistics hubs and sea ports, this will severely limit the autonomy of China's neighbors, including South Korea, who will have to toe the Chinese line, both economically and politically, or risk their own peace and prosperity.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.55-78
• /
• 2007

Northeast Asia is one of the regions which have been developing so rapidly. Yellow sea, located between Korea and China, became a very important logistical zone because of its huge volume of cargo and big passenger traffic. These two countries continuously are enlarging their port facilities such as berths, container yards, storage capacity and their information system in this the Pan Yellow sea area. Two countries also introduce many new liner routes and car-ferry shipping services. Therefore there must be a severe competitions and conflicts among the countries and their companies and ports as well. Some experts worry about the over capacity of port and logistics facilities. This paper investigated the current conditions of Korea-China shipping route, container and car-ferry route, and found out the problems and tasks, with the support of many experts. There are so many alternatives and strategies to solve and rationalize the shipping route and the problems of ports of two countries. This paper suggest many strategies connecting with marketing 4Ps. As port service is also a kind of service product, we can categorize the strategies into 4Ps suggested by McCarthy. And this paper classify all these alternatives into 3 dimensions. There are competitive strategies, cooperative strategies and coopetition strategies. This paper propose some directions and ideas for adopting the strategy in the port and logistical topics between Korea and China, suggesting 3 dimensions of strategies. After this paper, many diagnoses and practical investigations should be executed to introduce optimal solutions and minimize the additional cost.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.59-67
• /
• 2004

As the environment for international logistics varies according to the globalization in world economy, world-class seaports are struggling for the position as strongholds in their own block. As a new government begins its own era in Korea, they are positively implementing their strategies at the level of government for making the Korean Peninsula the logistics centre in North-eastern Asia, marking the most of its geographic advantage. As one of those strategies, it plans to foster a specific area as an international logistics base camp in Northeast Asia by activating its logistics industry through inducing multinational logistics enterprises. In reality, however, in order for Busan seaport, the late-comer, to induce investment from the world-class multinational companies, a considerably large volume of investment should be given from both central and local governments. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to assess its competitiveness and to suggest an activation plan for BSDFA(Busan Seaport Duty-Free Area), based upon the results of on-the-spot interviews in China and Japan. The survey for the respondent's preference by way of Conjoint Analysis indicated that Investment procedures and limitations get the highest 36.2％ preference, so the most critical strategy to be considered for attracting enterprises into DFA(Duty-Free Area) is to solve the problems related to the investment procedures and limitations. The simulation analysis results for market share showed that UAE has the highest preference and BSDFA the lowest preference among the five countries. However, when the levels of investment procedures and limitations and production costare upgraded, the competitiveness of BSDFA was elevated next to that of UAE among the 5 countries. Thus, in order for BSDFA to obtain competitiveness, it is implied that production cost level as well as investment procedures and limitations level, should be lowered so that it could meet companies' demand.