• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.122-142
• /
• 2016

This paper examines the implications of North Korea's Special Economic Zone (SEZ) strategy since the early 1990s in terms of the shifts in both North Korea's economic system and geopolitical order on the Korean peninsula. Specifically, it analyzes the shifts in North Korea's SEZ policy in three different aspects-North Korea's unique territorial logic, stress on decentralization, and comparison with Chinese reform and opening-up. Based upon this analysis, this paper criticizes a linear approach to understand North Korea's economic transformation from isolation to opening-up, and explores the dynamics of North Korea SEZ strategy in various dimensions. It contends that North Korea's SEZ strategy is neither an inevitable choice from economic difficulty nor an adoption of Chinese model of reform and opening up. Rather this paper focuses on the geopolitical logic and local development imperatives underlying SEZ strategy.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.37 no.sup
• /
• pp.87-121
• /
• 2015

To attract more FDI inflows, the Korean government has designated several special economic zones (SEZs), offering various advantages and support to the FDI. There is, however, a shared acknowledgement that those efforts have gained little reward. In this regard, this paper empirically analyzes company-level performances of labor productivity, operating profit ratio, propensity to invest and innovate, etc. and then conducts regression analysis and PSM analysis to see whether these performances are meaningfully different between foreign-invested firm and domestic firm and between foreign-invested firms. The main findings of this paper are as follows. First, in the aspects of labor productivity and operating profit ratio, no empirical evidence was found to support the hypothesis that foreign-invested firm outperforms domestic firm in efficiency and profitability, Second, in the aspects of propensity to invest, foreign-invested firms in foreign investment zones outperformed domestic firms. Third, in the aspect of R&D investment, overall, foreign-invested firms showed a stronger propensity to invest than domestic firms, but there is no empirical evidence that high propensity to invest was driven by the policy on special economic zones. In the aspect of investment in educational training, empirical evidences were found that the role of foreign-invested firms outside the special zones turned out to be the strongest and that among firms inside special zones, it was those in the free economic zone that outperformed domestic firms. Lastly, foreign-invested firms showed a stronger propensity to employ than domestic firms, but there is no empirical evidence that high propensity to employ was driven by the policy on special economic zones.