Earticle

According to professor John Corter of Harvard University, one of the main factor that cause corporate to experience failure in reform is due to the existing cooperate cultural that may hamper the smooth penetration. Hence when cooperate is building ethical culture, it is necessary to construct an infrastructure that brings ethical execution in the center of organizational management process. Yet the reform, constructing a new ethical infrastructure, can only be driven by the CEO of the organization. Chairman Kun-Hee Lee, the head of the Samsung, has set his own ethical spirit further building an infrastructure with ethical management mindset that applies from a high-ranked executive to low-ranked manager: through this Chairman Kun-Hee Lee, as a guiding figure, has advanced powerful reform even to bring change in the mindset of CEO's, other executives and its employees. Samsung's ethical infrastructure lies in “to produce the superlative goods and services based on competent human and technological resources to make a contribution to human society” and in management philosophy that is regulating the creditability or trustiness of the company. Thus Samsung, through the regular sessions of education and forwarding the ethical infrastructure, has developed into leading group not only in domestic sphere but also maintained its peculiarity in global sphere. The Samsung's management reform strategy began with “The Frankfurt declaration” on June 1993 and the epochal event has altered Samsung's constitution. At that time, Samsung Electronics were fiercely competing against currently known as LG Electronics in a domestic market yet applying the “quality based management” and recruiting competent human resources as well as investing more on R&D to stand as globally recognized first-class manufactured goods, Samsung Electronics became the leading electronics sector in domestic economy. Furthermore overcoming the IMF crisis in the late 90's, Samsung was put as a leading figure among the corporate with globally competent information technology sources in year 2000. In year 1992, a year before starting the grand reform strategy, Samsung's total profits before tax stayed 230 billion Korean Won but by the end of 2004, the total profits before tax became 60 times more, 14 trillion Korean Won. At the same time, the debt ratio was reduced from336% to 90% and moreover, Samsung's brand value hiked up as competent as No.1 brand at a global market: they became one of the leading companies in the world. In addition, Samsung carries the vision of an enterprise based on sharing and coexisting humanity, Samsung, through the active social contribution to the digitally neglected social class, not only in Korea but also in countries like Russia and Southeast Asia, has strengthened its brand image, friendliness and trustiness as well as taking full responsibility as an undertaking citizenry. Due to the Chairman Kun-Hee Lee's endeavors to build Samsung as the world's best company, active corporate activities and incessant management strategies led Samsung as the leading domestic enterprise in the global market also one of the most preferable company to invest among the Foreign Direct Investors. Currently, Samsung is putting all-in efforts in preparation for anew management project for coming decade along the training employees to become globally competent: they are not just leading a comfortable life with present time, the biggest profit in history, rather they are still seeking for reform or change in preparation to future: the exploratory question of what could Samsung do to compete in the future global market? Such a forwardly put vision of Samsung could be guidance and may well be considered to search for future direction of Korean corporate and society. Samsung aims 4 main strategies: first, management of globally competent human resources in preparation to the next 5~10 years, second, procuring the service sector and world's best product, third, seeking the opportunity for preoccupying global market by searching for the hopeful sector in the future, and last, social-friendly management and reaching the world top brand value. As the world moves step closer to the post-internet, ubiquitous and biotechnology era, the encouragement of society to such entrepreneurs is needed for Samsung to continue the myth of the world's best enterprise.

Six Sigma and Lean are the deferent method of management innovation in the approach method. And so it is important to integrate Lean and Six Sigma. In above original text saying, No man know the fact that SAMSUNG run after the Lean and Six Sigma is the Lean Six Sigma. This is the reason that two methods are pursue separately in physic. If two methods integrate chemically the fact that SAMSUNG run after can say Lean Six Sigma. It is a subject of companies how those are integrated. Six Sigma, technique that organized so as to expanse innovation method of quality, is not enough to seek the development, but is knew that Lean can fill a vacancy. By the way, the concept of Lean and Six Sigma never be opposed to each other. However the foreign enterprise induce to put practical use the Lean Six Sigma in company. In future, the enterprise will be induce the lean six sigma so as to does not fall behind. When we construct the lean six sigma, we shall learn an instance of foreign enterprise and need steady efforts for construction of suitable system in our country.

The purpose of this paper analyzes the process and situation of financial cooperation in East Asia and suggests policy implications for the East Asian monetary integration and cooperation. There has been a growing trend toward regional cooperation in East Asia since the 1997 financial crisis. This trend toward East Asian economic integration has been accelerating under the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) framework. it is desirable that the APT framework serves to promote economic and financial cooperation in the region Economic and monetary cooperation in East Asia has just started and the process is still at a rudementary stage. However, it is necessary to make an honest effort to bring about monetary cooperation and integration in East Asia by policy entrepreneurs

Since the crash of 1987, researcher have realized that the Black-Scholes model can no longer explain the observed volatility smile in the option markets. These conditions have led to renewed interest in parametric extension of the Black-Scholes model that incorporate stochastic volatility and stochastic jumps. An alternative approach is to use observed option prices in order to learn more about the stochastic process of the asset price. Given a set of option prices with specific times to expiration, we can find risk-neutral probability distributions that support theses prices. Different methods to estimate of the implied risk-neutral probability distribution have been proposed, among which we distinguish two different approaches. Parametric methods, such as the mixture method and the expansion method, postulate a particular form for the probability distribution and fit the parameters to observed prices. Non-parametric methods, such as the maximum-entropy method, the kernel method, and the curve fitting method, do not make any specific assumption on the form of the probability distribution but require a lot of data. A number of studies assess the change in these probability distributions due to news events. The implied risk-neutral probability distribution expected by investors in the future underlying asset price distribution is a crucial information in option market. In other words, the implied risk-neutral probability distribution helps to real “market sentiment,” which could be useful for the policy stance of monetary authorities or for contrarian investors who disagree with the consensus shape of the distribution. Consequently, it is necessary to systematic study on use of the implied risk-neutral probability distribution.

The merits of M&A are the transparency of management and improvement of corporate governance. but M&A has some demerit. First, Long-term plans are not at investment because of the unstable right of management. Second, earnings is weakened by putting excessive finance for defense the right of management. Finally, partial speculation funds ask often excessive cash dividends and the disposal of major assets. In addition, ownership is a important factor in M&A. The more is managerial ownership, the greater is angency problem because of the effect of an entrenchment. Therefore managers are apt to seek their own profits. For example, managers of bidding firms are infected by hubris, and so overpay for targets because they overestimate their own abillity to run them. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of relationship between the M&A and Ownership structure on the corporate value of 388 korean listed companies in the 2003. and this paper examines the relation between managerial ownership and the probability of being a target firm, and the impact of managerial ownership on target shareholder returns. This paper finds that managerial ownership is not significantly related to Tobin's q for target and bidder firms and that targets are associated with significantly smaller levels of managerial ownership than nontargets.

이 글의 목적은 최근 EU의 과학기술정책 동향을 살펴보고, 이를 통하여 우리나라 과학기술발전에 시사하는 바가 무엇인지를 찾고자함에 있다. EU의 과학기술개발 프로그램은 차세대의 기술경쟁력 제고에 목표를 둔 장기 전략 의 성격이 강한 프로젝트를 중심으로 회원국 기업이나 정부 차원에서 연구개발 활동 의 낭비적 중복을 줄이고, 첨단기술의 응용과 통합흡수에 필요한 인력과 자원의 활 용효과를 제고시키는 동시에, 유럽기업과 지역 국가간의 기술이전이 용이해질 것을 기대하면서 추진하고 있다. EU는 1980년대 중반 이후 EUREKA, AirBus 등의 사업을 통해 기술의 활용도를 제고시키는 한편 기술의 상업화에 노력하여 왔다. 또한 사회와 기술혁신의 결합을 추구함으로써 기술에 대한 사용자(user)의 접근이 용이하도록 노력을 기울이고 있다. ‘삶이 질’ 또는 ‘지속가능한 개발’ 등 당면한 사회문제 해결 등을 통해서 일반 국민 들이 지식․정보기반 산업의 재화 및 서비스 사용이 가능하도록 하고 있다. 이와 같은 EU의 과학기술정책의 변화 가운데 우리가 주목해야할 것은 EU 차원의 공동연구의 추진이라 할 수 있다. 기술의 변화속도가 가속화되고 신제품의 주기단축, 복합화 등이 빠르게 진행됨에따라 회원국간 산학협동에 의한 공동연구의 필요성은 더욱 커져가고 있다. EU의 제6차 프레임워크 프로그램은 회원국 연구자, 연구서 및 연구기관 등이 네트워킹을 통한 과학기술연구를 통합하여 유럽을 하나의 과학기술연 구지대(ERA)로 연결하기 위한 노력을 추진하고 있다. 이와 같은 유럽의 과학기술연구의 흐름은 우리나라에 많은 시사점을 주고 있다. 첫째, 우리나라 기업간의 공동프로젝트 추진을 통해서 글로벌 시장에서 우리 기업들 의 경쟁력을 제고시킬 필요가 있다. 최근 EU의 많은 과학기술프로젝트는 회원국들 의 기업 및 연구소들 간에 공동연구에 의해 추진되면서 연구비용과 위험의 절감과 시너지 효과를 얻고 있음을 눈여결 볼 필요가 있다. 둘째, 국가간 과학기술협력의 확 대가 필요하다. 일본과 중국을 포함한 동북아국가사이에 과학기술분야에서 협력이 비교적 용이한 분야를 찾아내어 EU식의 공동프로그램의 추진을 고려할 필요가 있 다. 어느 한나라가 모든 면의 기술우위를 점할 수 없고, 세계시장이 단일체제로의 진 전, 정보화의 발달, 지적재산권 보호의 강화 및 기술이전 기피 등을 과학기술개발의 국제화가 전세계적으로 더욱 확산되는 경향이 과학기술의 국제협력을 더욱 가속화시 키고 있기 때문이다. 셋째, EU와 과학기술협력을 강화하는 것이 바람직하다. EU는 과학기술협력에 있어서 역외국에게도 문호를 개방하고 있는 추세이나, 우리나라는 범유럽 과학기술프로그램에 참여현황이 미국, 일본은 물론 중국이나 브라질보다도 부진한 상황이다. 따라서 EU의 과학기술 프로그램의 국제적 연계 강화노력에 적극 적으로 참여하여 유럽지역을 우리나라의 또 다른 과학기술의 파트너라는 인식의 전 환이 필요할 것이다.

The purpose of this paper is to study the current status of R&D policies and directions of EU and therefore, link the trend to Korean opportunities. A strong involvement after the Second World War initiated to uphold peace and to bring internal market closer within the Europe. Many significant results including Customs Union in 1968 and Internal Market in 1993 and Economic and Monetary Union(EMU) with introduction of Euro( €) in 1999 benefited the regional economy. As a result, EU, with its roots in Customs Union, developed to an Internal Market giant through five expansions. Today, the community presents a Single European Market with 25 member countries and population of 4.5 Billion. However, despite the efforts to prosper the integration of internal market, the economy competencies between EU and US showed a significant gap. This is when the need of ‘Lisbon Strategy’, in accordance with introduction of Euro(€), aroused in the region. In March 2000, the European leaders agreed to stimulate economic growth and employment and make Europe’s economy the most competitive in the world. If Europe would really reach the goal they set, Europe’s Gross Domestic Product could increase by 12% to 23% and employment by about 11%. According to EU, however, the progress and outputs of ‘Lisbon Strategy’ during the past five years were limited. In Jan 2005, despite its progress in certain areas, EU reported the status of ‘Lisbon Strategy’ with a ‘dark and cloudy’ outlook in the future unless full and active involvements of member countries are provided. During the Brussels Summit held on March 22 to 23 2005, ‘New Lisbon Strategy’ were announced but showed a level of disagreements of few member countries. Among ‘three pillars’ of previous ‘Lisbon Strategy’, economy growth, social unity and sustainable environment, it is discussed that amendment is required to focuson growth and employment at utmost. According to EU Commission analysis, under the assumption of full and proper execution of the plan, EU will expect to experience 3% GDP growth and create 6 million new jobs. New ‘Lisbon Strategy’ plans to increase investment on R&D on ‘Knowledge and Innovation for Growth’ from current 1.9% level to 3.0% by 2010. The result expects to grow 1.7% growth in GDP. R&D policy of EU expanded on three major steps after the Second World War. Until 1975, the first step focused on linear innovation model of balancing natural science and defense industry to cope and manage future economy and military issues. In addition, since the establishment of EU originates from ‘European Coal and Steel Community(ECSC)’ in 1951 and Euratom in 1957, a large portion of R&D activities were focusedin nuclear, mining and steel industry and such tradition is continued up to date. The second step, from 1975 to 1995, EU concentrated on developing industry competencies on high-tech sector to meet its further economic goal and target. Strategic priority on IT and telecommunication industries accelerated on innovation on EU’s newly focused areas. Such change was inevitable due to limited industry competency compared to US and Japan, two oil shocks in 1970s, emergence of Japan despite its lack of concentration in defense industry and IT boom in global economy. EU continued its third phase from late 1990s by linking its R&D policy innovation on social issues. Mainly, the trend emerged from the collapse of socialism. The focus on heavy spending on defense issues ‘transferred’ to globalization of economy and technology, high unemployment rate, new paradigm on environment and life. R&D policy during the period held a measure to socio/economic issues. On the same track, the policy provided socio/economic influences on innovation of daily and social life as well as structure efficiency to enhance further positive factors.= One of the most significant factors of EU’s R&D policy is that it is required the integration of research efforts at European level. Collaborating between laboratories at European level meant ‘sharing’ the false possible output if a certain strategy/policy is conducted on its own by a sole EU member country. In addition, on the bright side, collaborating led to a potential market expansion from ‘national’ to ‘European’ level. Funding issues on pan-Europe level is likely to increase R&D investment compared to when conducted on country basis. Examples include a science and technology research effort as ‘Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research(COST)’ in 1970s, with the influence of two oil shocks. However, further expansion showed little progress due to frequent disagreement among the member countries and unanimous governance structure. Such trend began to improve in 1980s. Research programs done by individual countries brought a certain level of limits on its capabilities on becoming a global player. What was worse was that research activities in electronic industry, one of EU’s core strategic focus, ‘lost’ its direction byindividual program. As a result, EU members regarded significant awareness and began its initial form of cooperation since 1984, which made progress into ‘Framework Program(FP)’. Along with energy sector, many efforts are conducted in various industries including information, communication, environment, technology, agriculture, food, biotechnology and nutrient with standard. FP, limited to pre-level of fair market competition, is held in every four year period and currently operates its 6th FP started in 2002. Issues and budget regarding on FP matters are proposed by EU Commission, then followed by appropriate procedure from European Council(EC) to European Parliament(EP). It is subject to EU legislation. With its integration of research efforts on hi-tech concentration, EU recognized the strategic benefit of taking the leadership role by co-owning the resources, involvements and even risks. A sure wayto strengthen and accelerate its market presence to US and Japan is to enhance its mutual complementary alliance, conduct large scale research and increase activities with Non-EU countries. On macro level, EU’s transnational research programs are based on a forward thinking approach, where long-term strategic projects consistthe most of cases by reducing duplicable R&D costs, maximizing application and integration of working and other resources and simplifying the procedures of technology transfer in the European level. In the late 80s, many great outputs were delivered such as expansion of technology utilization and commercialization as in EUREKA and Airbus projects. Furthermore, social and technical innovation granted easy access to end-users. Providing solutions to social issues as ‘Quality of Life’ and ‘Sustainable Growth’ enabled citizens to be fully exposed on knowledge and information industries. Many research programs are conducted on cooperative system and strategic alliance among corporate and academic community. As new product cycle and speed shortens and complexity broadens, the importance of cooperative system plays a vital link to success. For example, since 6th FP, EU continues to put great efforts on networking and connecting Europe as ‘European Research Area(ERA)’ with its institutes and researchers. Likewise, many progresses of EU programs forward benchmarking issues to study to Korea. First of all, strategic alliance among Korean corporations in global business environment is a feasible option. Current trend in Europe is that many hi-tech projects are conducted by co-efforts of regions’ corporations and institutes reducing costs and risks and producing synergetic outputs. Secondly, cooperative presence among sovereign-level will provide further opportunities. With Japan and China as well as other Northeast Asian countries, benchmarking EU approach will lead to many opportunities since no single country alone can deliver technical competency in all areas. In addition, intensifying trend in regionalism, information, intellectual property rights and technology transfer leads to expansion of globalization in hi-tech industries. Thirdly, it is appropriate to fully mutually utilize the ‘openness’ of EU on non-member countries. However, Korea’s involvement as of now is far behind on that of US, Japan and even to emerging markets as China and Brazil. Korea is in a right position and critical moment to increaseits participation in global community and develop further relationshipand presence with EU as a partner.

Since 1989, economic relation between two Koreas has been rapidly increased in term of trade and investment as well, mainly drived by government of South Korea. As a result, South Korea is the 2th largest trade partner for North Korea, next to China and economic dependency on South Korea is also getting higher. Trade with South Korea is one of important sources of earning foreign currency for North Korea. However, lack of marketable products of north korea to export to south korea makes it difficult for both sides to expand economic exchange and cooperation. Development of economic relation between two Koreaa relys substantially on non-commercial transaction in form of economic aids by South Korea. For enhancement of economic relation with north korea, efforts are needed to promote exchange of products. As for investment in North Korea, business climate is underdeveloped so that privite companies invest hardly with firm expectation of gaining profits. Under abnormal situation facing North Korea, it is desirable to put first priority on promoting transaction of products by privite companies. In parallel with it, efforts should be concentrated on making investment climate more sound, for example the development of Gaesung Industrial Complex. Besides to promoting the bilateral relation, cooperation with neighboring countries will make great contribution to promotion of economic relations between two Koreas. However, confrontation between North Korea and the U.S is main obstacle to pave the way for multilateral cooperation, which makes North Korea more isolated from the rest world. If current issues like nuclear problem would not find solution, North Korea's isolation would be hardly overcome, which would also make difficult further development of economic cooperation between two Koreas It is remarkble that trade between North Korea and China is expanding with galoping tempo. Trade between two countries in 2005 increased by 40% comparing previous year, which is faster than that between two Koreas. China is the 1st trade partner for North Korea. Political leaders of China who visited Pungyang last year gave words to cooperate with North Korea for economic development. Nowdays China is first largest trade partner for both North- and South Korea. Interdependency of three countries will be more deepening. China has grand plan to establish the economic zone in the Northeast Asia including North Korea. Tripartite relation among China, ROK, DPRK will play favourable role in developing economic relation of two Koreas.

The aims of this study are to examine on the art and culture thoughts of Bum Young Sung, and also analyze on the formation process of his thoughts in order to find-out his Philosophy. This is the story of a farmer who spent about 40 years his life doting on miniature dwarf trees in Jeju, an island blessed with beautiful splender of nature. He is Mr. Bum-Young Sung who converted a wasteland once covered with throny shrubs into one of the most beautiful bunjae gardens in the world, the Bunjaeartpia. His life in Jeju started when he first came to the island to visit an old army friend. His relatives and neighbors called him “a madman” as he totally devoted all his efforts to reclaiming a field choked with graved and trimining of trees. But nobody could stop his love for bunjae and trees. Finally in 1992, he open the Spirited Garden in Jeju. When asked where he hails from, he always say that he is from Jeju. He answers so even though he was actually born and raised in the mainland in a town called yongin in Kyung-ki do as there is nothing left in his life without Jeju and Trees. Bunjae Attpia is a garden located at Jeju-si, Hankyung myun, Bukjeju-gun, Jeju. It is not a typical bontanical garden or bunjae museum. It's a secret garden where nature, life and Philosophy coexist in harmoney. The foreign press has touted the Garden as an exceptinal, unique bunjae garden, the only one of its kind in the world. One after another distinguised guests have visited the Garden. The list included former President of China, Jiang Jemin, incumbent President of China, Hu Jintao, former prime minister of Japan, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and former U.S Ambassador to Korea, James T. Laney. Another Source of beauty found at the Garden is the stone fence that Mr. Sung built one layer after another. He is so much taken to stones that he is often called “the man madly in love with stones”. Mr. Sung is still working on the rocky field and trimming trees bit by bit while endeavoring to set the record straight as regards the mistaken belief that bunjae is a part of the Japanese culture and prejudice that bunjae is like toaturing trees. Now the entire world is aware of his works and stands in awe of his world. Frankly speaking, as like said by Fan Jing yi who was a foemer chief editor of the People Daily of China, Mr. Sung is a Philosopher of Bunjae. Bunhae of Philosopher, a deep thinking of a bunjae Philosopher.

This paper analyzes the case for enhanced takeover defenses for East Asian companies in the modern context of global investors, open capital markets and disproportionate control structures. It surveys the current evolution in two families of takeover policy: (i) the American experience with poison pills and staggered boards, and the pill’s recent adoption in Japan; and (ii) the UK’s board passivity approach and its inclusion as an option in the European Union’s Directive on Takeover Bids. Given the incentives of controlling shareholders to seek greater takeover protection and the problems inherent to controlling minority corporate structures, a potentially attractive solution is proposed: an opt-in takeover law regime offering enhanced anti-takeover protections to companies that meet qualifying criteria. The opt-in regime would craft appropriate capital markets preconditions to company access to stronger takeover protections: eligibility would be based on an effective one-share, one-vote control structure and adequate disclosure. The enhanced takeover law would allow boards to reject an unsolicited bid, but remove their ability to use a staggered board to block a bid where the bidder wins a proxy contest. This opt-in proposal strives to achieve that elusive balance between the protection of deserving managers and the preservation of the shareholder franchise. Its aim is twofold: (i) to bypass the difficulties that the Delaware courts in the U.S. and the European Commission in its 13th Directive on Takeover Bids have experienced in wrestling with takeover defense policy, entrenched incumbents and cross-border reciprocity issues and (ii) to offer a strong incentive to controlling shareholders to restructure the extreme controlling-minority-shareholder capital structures that are a drag on the value of East Asian companies. Precise, transparent rules governing the market for corporate control would providecapital markets players a better roadmap to the costs and conditions of hostile acquisitions, potentially eliminating some inefficient acquisition efforts and the accompanying drain on management resources. If companies opt-in in significant numbers, the new regime may result in a net social benefit in the form of reducing the opportunity and benefits of bad-private-benefits extraction by minority controllers.

The following text documents the first part of a longer article of the author that deals with the policy of education in Germany after 1945 in general and political education in particular. The here presented first part is concentrating on the first twenty years after the end of World War II. The decision of the author to split the article in two parts instead of a rigorous abbreviation of the text was made in order to meet the terms and conditions of the journal as well as to keep the integrity of the whole text. To ensure economical progress as well as social peace among heterogeneous societies, the field of educational policy is a cornerstone in the daily business of a running state today. With respect to its history, the policy of education and especially political education received an accentuated function in Germany, since the end of World War II. Until the founding of the two German States in 1949, it have been the allies, who defined the goals of educational policy in the first years of post-war Germany. But with the upcoming cold war it became clear very quickly, that it would be difficult to act in concert. With the collapse of the allied control council in 1949 it obviously became impossible. Apart from that, the objectives of the educational policy among the west-allies and the soviets during that time have been quite the same, namely to eliminate the national socialist body of thoughts. As a matter of fact, the methods and the process of development in the then two German States, have been different. In the Federal Republic of Germany (FDR), under than chancellor Konrad Adenauer, it was common sense, to overcome the past and to reintegrate the political and economical system of the country in the western community as fast as possible. Therefore, the matters of educational policy primarily have been subordinated to the needs of the economy. For the government of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), it belongs to their political self-image, that the socialistic revolution would bea guarantor to clear the society from all aspects of former national socialism. Speaking provocantly: For the West-Germans, it was the so called Wirtschaftswunder that should prevent their citizens from a backslide to former megalomania, whereas in East Germany it was the ideology of socialism which officially guaranteed a peaceful and prosperous future. With respect to the complex object of investigation and the different trends in the two German States, the focus of the paper is the development in the Federal Republic of Germany. In the first part presented here, the author tries to give a general overview of the situation in post-war Germany after 1945 and the different theories of political education developed by the allies. He tries to outline, that the problems of the existing educational structures in Germany together with the upcoming confrontation between east and west let abandon the west-allies their ambitious plans very quickly in favour of a strong political and economical alliance with West-Germany against the Warsaw Pact. The first time, when the question of guidelines for educational policy came on a broad political agenda was in the beginning sixties, when a serial of anti-semitic smearings shocked the public. The paper will show, how the ruling parties tried to meet the problem by setting up several task forces and developing a multitude of strategic plans. But for the ongoing process of coming to terms with the past it have been the academic circles, especially the social and political sciences, that developed strategies of conflict resolution and worked on the implementation of standards for political education to deal with the past, as well as with the future.

세계 경제는 3대 축으로 즉, EU, NAFTA와 아세아권 경제 등으로 구분되는데, 전자 는 선진국을 중심으로 오랜 기간 동안 점진적으로 통합되고 발전되어 온 공동체임에 비 하여 아시아에서는 경제 통합의 필요성은 인정되지만 그 청사진에 대해서는 여전히 모 호한 상태에 있다. 최근 세계화의 물결 속에서 유럽과 미국을 중심으로 하는 공동체를 아시아 영역까지 끌어들이고 있는 움직임이 APEC과 ASEM 등의 형태로 나타나고 있지 만 이는 열강들이 아시아에 대한 필요성에 의해 나타나는 것으로 풀이된다. 그러나 선진국의 경제통합 노력은 아시아인들에 의한 공동체의 생성에 자극제가 될 뿐만 아니라 그 필요성을 점차 인식되게 한다. 동남아시아에서는 1960년대 중반 동남아 국가연합(ASEAN)이 성립, 확대되어 정치, 안보에서 경제 협력으로까지의 발전을 거듭 함에 따라 동아시아 공동체가 태동되었다. 1990년대에 이르러서 동북아시아의 3국인 한, 중, 일이 이에 가세함으로써 동아시아의 협력체가 싹트고 있다. 이것은1997년 아시 아의 외환위기를 기점으로 그 속도가 가속화되고있다. 그러나 동아시아의 공동체의 형성의 주도권 문제에 있어서는 일본과 중국이 동북아의 핵심국가로서 경제에서 정치로 옮겨가면서 그 패권적인 역할을 누가 선도하느냐따라 그 향방이 결정된다. 최근 중국과 말레이시아가 주도하는 동아시아 정상회담(EAS)의 말레 이시아 쿠알라룸푸르 선언이 태동된 이후 여기에는 미국을 배제한 아세안 + 3 + 인도, 호주, 뉴질랜드 등의 16개국과 러시아가 참관인 자격으로 참가했다. 이에 따라 앞으로 역내에는 중국을 중심으로 하는 체제가 구축될 것으로 보인다. 이에 비해서 일본이 중심 이 되는 아시아의 경제동맹(EPA)을 구체화시킴으로써 여기에는 미국, 호주 등의 해양세 력의 지원 하에 가속화하고 있다. 여기에는 경제협력 이외에도 에너지, 무역, 자본, 금융 협력 등의 물질적인 교류 이외에도 역내의 제도, 규범, 법 등도 글로벌 스탠다드에 맞춰 나가려는 노력이 부각되고 있지만 이는 결국 동아시아의 헤게모니를 장악하려는 대륙과 해양세력간의 군사적인 준비까지 포함되는 내용으로 내다 볼 수 있다. 이러한 역내의 두가지 흐름은 오랜 시간 동안 아시아에서 예견된 것이기 때문에 그 귀추가 주목되는 것 이 현실이다. 우리나라의 경우 동북아의 경제 중심이라는 구호만으로는 자칫 주변국들과의 마찰만 불러 일으키고 내실은 기하지 못하는 우를 범할 수 있다. 따라서 우선 군사적으로 대륙 과 해양 세력의 중립적인 입장을 취하면서도 그 중심이 되려고 하기 보다는 한, 미 공조 체제 위에서 우리 나아갈 길을 찾아야 한다. 또한 한국경제의 세계화를 위해서는 선진국 과의 FTA를 추진하는 방향으로 나아가야 하기 때문에 이에 대한 안목을 갖추고 우리 경제의 경쟁력을 제고시키는 실질적인 대안을 마련해야 할 것이다. 물론 이에는 남북문 제의 평화적인 해결이 전제되어야 하겠으며, 이는 궁극적으로는 동아시아의 경제공동체 의 형성에도 도움이 될 것이다.