In this paper the prevailing geography of the information sector, fousing on its occupatonal dimension, is examined. The purposes of this paper are to analyze the labor force share of information occupation workers at each special city and region, to compare the inter-regional distribution of information workforce and to analyze regional share of information occupations in manufacturing industry. Spatial pattern of size and occupational composition of information sector shows a core-periphery disparity. There is a clear evidence of Seoul's dominance of the information economy, particularly such as scientific and technical, consultative services, management and process control function. Also the distribution of information workers in manufacturing industry over space was polarized than is the case for total manufacturing employment and noninformation workers. Therefore Korean information economy is marked by a highly articulated spatial division of labor within individual industry, which can be attributed to the locational characteristics of information intensive industries and industrial composition of regional economy. From the results of this study, information employment prospects among regions of Korea would reinforce the unequal geography of job opportunity. In this light, regional policy efforts should be given to the improvement of information infrastructure to facilitate new computer-based service products and process in peripheral regions.

University enrollment has long been regarded as one of the major factors inducing population concentration in Seoul and the Capital Region of Korea. Consequently, since early 1980's increases in enrollment and new establishments of extention universities beyond the boundary of Seoul, has been promoted, while university enrollment quota in Seoul has been strictly controlled. The degree of actual population dispersal, however, resulting from such a university enrollment policy has not been empirically tested. This paper aims at: First, identifying the trend of population growth and evolution process of the university enrollment policy in the Capital Region; Second, comparing the degree of influence of university enrollment on population concetration factors; Third, measuring actual effect of the enrollment control on population dispersal out of Seoul and the Capital Region. Major findings are as follows: First, only a week correlation between population and university enrollment growth trends was found; Second, the relative degree of influence on population concentration in the Capital Region, were order, in the order of magnitude, the physical amenity factor, the socio-cultural amenity factor, the employment climate factor and the educational factor. Third, and most improtant, based on the comparison of spatial distribution of graduated high schools and current residence of the selected university students, the gap between the two distributions was revealed and the inter-regional student population movement was estimated. The result shows that in Seoul's case about one-half of and in Kyunggi Province's case about one-fifth of university enrollment size, contributes to population concentration into Seoul. Fourth, as to the universities outside of the Capital Region, little effect in the case of universities located within the commuting distance, and a little effect on population dispersal in the case of universities located beyond commuting distance, were found. In sum, it seems clear that university enrollment policy in the Capital Region, especially in Inchon/Kyunggi Province has not been effective on student population dispersal out of Seoul and the Capital Region. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that university enrollment policy be throughly re-examined from its goal to the implementation means.

In this study, the significant and enduring concentration of federal R&D spending in metro-scale clusters across the nation is treated as evidence of the operation of a distinct industrial infrastructure defined by the ability of R&D performers to attract external funding and pursue the sophisticated project work demanded. It follows, then, that the agglomerative potential of these R&D concentrations -- performers and their support infrastructures -- requires a search for economic impacts guided by a different stimulative effects attributable to federal R&D spending may be that substantial subnational economic impacts are routinely obscured and diluted by research designs that seek to discover impacts either at the level of nation-scale economic aggregates or on firms or specific industries organized spatially. Therefore, this study proceeds by seeking to link the locational clustering of federal contract R&D spending to more localized economic impacts. It tests a series of models(X-IV) designed to trace federal contract R&D spending flows to economic impacts registered at the level of metro-regional economies. By shifting the focus from funding sources to recipient types and then to sector-specific impacts, the patterns of consistent results become increasingly compelling. In general, these results indicated that federal R&D spending does indeed nurture the development of an important nation-spanning advanced industrial production and R&D infrastructure anchored primarily by two dozed or so metro-regions. However, dominated as it is by a strong defense-industrial orientation, federal contract R&D spending would appear to constitute a relatively inefficient national economic development policy, at least as registered on conventional indicators. Federal contract R&D destined for the support of nondefense/civilian(Model I), nonprofit(Model II), and educational/research(Mode III) R&D agendas is associated with substantially greater regional employment and income impacts than is R&D funding disbursed by the Department of Defense. While federal R&D support from DOD(Model I) and for-profit(Model II) and industrial performer(Model III) contract R&D agendas are associated with positive regional economic impacts, they are substantially smaller than those associated with performers operating outside the defense industrial base. Moreover, evidence that the large-business sector mediates a small business sector(Model VI) justifies closer scrutiny of the relative contribution to economic growth and development made by these two sectors, as well as of the primacy typically accorded employment change as a conventional economic performance indicator. Ultimately, those regions receiving federal R&D spending have experienced measurable employment and income gains as a result. However, whether or not those gains could be improved by changing the composition -- and therefore the primary missions -- of federal R&D spending cannot be decided by merely citing evidence of its economic impacts of the kind reported here. Rather, that decision turns on a prior public choice relating to the trade-offs deemed acceptable between conventional employment and income gains, the strength of a nation's industrial base not reflected in such indicators, and the reigning conception of what constitutes national security -- military might or a competitive civilian economy.

This paper identifies the mechanisms governing the industrial location changes in Korea by focusing upon the emergence of the country's large conglomerate business organizations (chaebols). As the country has distinctive industrial organization, production systems, and government-business relations, this study tries to develop an ideal conceptual framework for the analysis of industrial location changes in Korea. It perceives the Korean economy as a system within which 'space-organizing', lage business organizations interact over time with government, smaller firms and multinational corporations at different geographical scales. The usefulness of the model is assessed using a case study of Korea's most representative chaebol, the Samsung Group. This study identifies chaebols as the dominant institutions in Korean society. Their growth and business strategies have been influenced by the Korean Government through its power to allocate capital resources. Regional dynamics of industry and labor, therfore, have been strongly influenced by changes in the location, industrial structure, and production system of chaebols. With econmic power concentrated within a few giant business groups and their major areas of operation restricted, unbalanced regional development has resulted. Dissatisfaction from residents in less-developed areas has pressured the Government to advise chaebols to disperse their production facilities. Most small and medium-sized firms are closely linked to large corporations through subcontracting. By forming hierarchical subcontracting. By forming hierarchical subcontracting systems, chaebols have indirectly exploited scattered, part-time, home-based, female and lower-paid laborers organized by subcontractors. Further, chaebols have expanded their business arena to encompass overseas locations in a bid to overcome the problem of a small domestic market, trade regulations and increased market, trade regulations and increased labor costs. Through their international business networks Korea's local and regional economies are integrated into the world economy. Indeed, the identification of the changing relationships of chaebols with both the Korean Government and smaller firms is the key to explaining the nations's spatial dyanmics of industry and labor.