• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.153-195
• /
• 2010

The recent global financial crisis has been the outcome of, among other things, the mismatch between institutions and the reality of the market in the current global financial system. The International financial institutions (IFIs) that were designed more than 60 years ago can no longer effectively meet the challenges posed by the current global economy. While the global financial market has become integrated like a single market, there is no international lender of last resort or global regulatory body. There also has been a rapid shift in the weight of economic power. The share of the Group of 7 (G7) countries in global gross domestic product (GDP) fell and the share of emerging market economies increased rapidly. Therefore, the tasks facing us today are: (i) to reform the IFIs -mandate, resources, management, and governance structure; (ii) to reform the system such as the international monetary system (IMS), and regulatory framework of the global financial system; and (iii) to reform global economic governance. The main focus of this paper will be the IMS reform and the role of the Group of Twenty (G20) summit meetings. The current IMS problems can be summarized as follows. First, the demand for foreign reserve accumulation has been increasing despite the movement from fixed exchange rate regimes to floating rate regimes some 40 years ago. Second, this increasing demand for foreign reserves has been concentrated in US dollar assets, especially public securities. Third, as the IMS relies too heavily on the supply of currency issued by a center country (the US), it gives an exorbitant privilege to this country, which can issue Treasury bills at the lowest possible interest rate in the international capital market. Fourth, as a related problem, the global financial system depends too heavily on the center country's ability to maintain the stability of the value of its currency and strength of its own financial system. Fifth, international capital flows have been distorted in the current IMS, from EMEs and developing countries where the productivity of capital investment is higher, to advanced economies, especially the US, where the return to capital investment is lower. Given these problems, there have been various proposals to reform the current IMS. They can be grouped into two: demand-side and supply-side reform. The key in the former is how to reduce the widespread strong demand for foreign reserve holdings among EMEs. There have been several proposals to reduce the self-insurance motivation. They include third-party insurance and the expansion of the opportunity to borrow from a global and regional reserve pool, or access to global lender of last resort (or something similar). However, the first option would be too costly. That leads us to the second option - building a stronger globalfinancial safety net. Discussions on supply-side reform of the IMS focus on how to diversify the supply of international reserve currency. The proposals include moving to a multiple currency system; increased allocation and wider use of special drawing rights (SDR); and creating a new global reserve currency. A key question is whether diversification should be encouraged among suitable existing currencies, or if it should be sought more with global reserve assets, acting as a complement or even substitute to existing ones. Each proposal has its pros and cons; they also face trade-offs between desirability and political feasibility. The transition would require close collaboration among the major players. This should include efforts at the least to strengthen policy coordination and collaboration among the major economies, and to reform the IMF to make it a more effective institution for bilateral and multilateral surveillance and as an international lender of last resort. The success on both fronts depends heavily on global economic governance reform and the role of the G20. The challenge is how to make the G20 effective. Without institutional innovations within the G20, there is a high risk that its summits will follow the path of previous summit meetings, such as G7/G8.

• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.11-25
• /
• 1979

There was much mass movement at many different mountain side of Peong Chang area in Kwangwon province by the influence of heavy rainfall through August/4 5, 1979. This study have done with the fact observed through the field survey and the information of the former researchers. The results are as follows; 1. Heavy rainfall area with more than 200mm per day and more than 60mm per hour as maximum rainfall during past 6 years, are distributed in the western side of the connecting line through Hoeng Seong, Weonju, Yeongdong, Muju, Namweon and Suncheon, and of the southern sea side of KeongsangNam-do. The heavy rain fan reason in the above area seems to be influenced by the mouktam range and moving direction of depression. 2. Peak point of heavy rainfall distribution always happen during the night time and seems to cause directly mass movement and serious damage. 3. Soil mass movement in Peongchang break out from the course sandy loam soil of granite group and the clay soil of lime stone and shale. Earth have moved along the surface of both bedrock or also the hardpan in case of the lime stone area. 4. Infiltration seems to be rapid on the both bedrock soil, the former is by the soil texture and the latter is by the crumb structure, high humus content and dense root system in surface soil. 5. Topographic pattern of mass movement spot is mostly the concave slope at the valley head or at the upper part of middle slope which run-off can easily come together from the surrounding slope. Soil profile of mass movement spot has wet soil in the lime stone area and loose or deep soil in the granite area. 6. Dominant slope degree of the soil mass movement site has steep slope, mostly, more than 25 degree and slope position that start mass movement is mostly in the range of the middle slope line to ridge line. 7. Vegetation status of soil mass movement area are mostly fire field agriculture area, it's abandoned grass land, young plantation made on the fire field poor forest of the erosion control site and non forest land composed mainly grass and shrubs. Very rare earth sliding can be found in the big tree stands but mostly from the thin soil site on the un-weatherd bed rock. 8. Dangerous condition of soil mass movement and land sliding seems to be estimated by the several environmental factors, namely, vegetation cover, slope degree, slope shape and position, bed rock and soil profile characteristics etc. 9. House break down are mostly happen on the following site, namely, colluvial cone and fan, talus, foot area of concave slope and small terrace or colluvial soil between valley and at the small river side Dangerous house from mass movement could be interpreted by the aerial photo with reference of the surrounding site condition of house and village in the mountain area 10. As a counter plan for the prevention of mass movement damage the technics of it's risk diagnosis and the field survey should be done, and the mass movement control of prevention should be started with the goverment support as soon as possible. The precautionary measures of house and village protection from mass movement damage should be made and executed and considered the protecting forest making around the house and village. 11. Dangerous or safety of house and village from mass movement and flood damage will be indentified and informed to the village people of mountain area through the forest extension work. 12. Clear cutting activity on the steep granite site, fire field making on the steep slope, house or village construction on the dangerous site and fuel collection in the eroded forest or the steep forest land should be surely prohibited When making the management plan the mass movement, soil erosion and flood problem will be concidered and also included the prevention method of disaster.