By Troy Stangarone

With the arrest of Lee Jae-yong on charges of bribery, embezzlement, perjury, and the illegal transfer of funds abroad, Samsung faces a period of uncertainty at a critical time for South Korea’s leading chaebol. Last year, Samsung had begun to turn around declining trends in earnings and seemed to turn a corner on product design until the failure of the Galaxy Note 7 damaged Samsung’s image. At the same time Samsung was managing these corporate challenges, it was also undergoing a multiyear transition to the leadership of Lee Jae-yong from his father Lee Kun-hee, who has been incapacitated since a heart attack in 2014. Now, Samsung faces the prospect of being without its new leadership before the transition has been completed.

Lee Jae-yong may ultimately be found to be innocent, but his temporary removal raises questions for Samsung’s near-term future as well as for the impact of a potentially more permanent departure from Samsung’s leadership.

Who Will Run Samsung in the Short-Term?

With Lee Jae-yong expected to be in custody at a minimum for up to 21 days as prosecutors prepare formal charges plus the length of any trial, Samsung will likely be run by a trusted caretaker. In the past, when Lee Kun-hee was unable to run Samsung due to convictions on bribery and tax evasion, lieutenants ran Samsung as caretakers. With Lee Jae-yong at least temporarily removed from the scene we should expect a similar arrangement. As was the bribery and tax evasion case with his father in 2008, multiple executives are also under investigation, meaning that Choi Gee-sung, the number two at Samsung, may not end up serving as the caretaker depending on how the investigation into Samsung’s ties to Choi Soon-sil develop.

While Samsung has delayed conducting its annual management reshuffle and setting business targets for the year in light of the crisis, keeping key people in place might actually add stability to Samsung at an uncertain time. At a division level, Samsung is run by professional managers who should be able to keep things moving forward, limiting the impact of Lee Jae-yong’s absence in the near-term. The real question for Samsung will be whether any caretaker is empowered to make strategic decisions, something which has not been the case in the past.

What Does this Mean for the Succession Plan?

The prospect of Lee Jae-yong spending an extended period of time behind bars raises questions about the viability of completing the succession plan. If he is ultimately exonerated, the succession plans can continue to move forward. At a minimum, the succession plan will slow down, but may have to be rethought if Lee Jae-yong is convicted.

Given the current uncertainty, the initial default option will likely be to follow the path of his father and leave Samsung in the hands of a caretaker until Lee Jae-yong’s legal situation is resolved and a future Korean president has granted a pardon allowing Lee Jae-yong to resume control. If a conviction requires an alternative plan, one option would be to continue with the succession process, but transition control to another family member such as Lee Boo-jin or Lee Seo-hyun. A third option would be to maintain family ownership, but transition the company to permanent professional management. In this scenario, the family would likely need to make clear that any professional manager was empowered to make strategic decisions for Samsung moving forward.

Will Samsung Continue Internal Reforms?

The charges against Lee Jae-yong may provide insight into whether the internal reforms at Samsung were supported by the entire Lee family or were the sole initiative of Lee Jae-yong. Under his leadership, Lee Jae-yong has sought to modernize and move Samsung’s internal culture to one more akin to a start-up to help spur innovation. Some of the moves included more flexible working hours, reducing management levels, loosening the use of titles, encouraging more discussion, and limiting the pressure to attend after work functions.

While Samsung has been successful with its traditional corporate culture, it also faces a more competitive international environment and change will likely be a key to long-term success. With Lee Jae-yong removed from Samsung’s day-to-day operations, will management begin to slip back into more traditional management styles, or has there been a broader decision made to reform Samsung’s internal culture in a way that would survive Lee Jae-yong’s absence?

How Will this Impact Samsung’s Brand and Growth?

Samsung took a hit to its reputation last year with the Galaxy Note 7’s battery issues. The Galaxy Note 7 aside, as long as Samsung continues to produce quality, innovative products its reputation is unlikely to take much of a hit internationally. Domestically, however, because of the ubiquitous nature of Samsung and the ties of the scandal to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, its reputation will face greater challenges.

While the Samsung brand is unlikely to be significantly damaged from the scandal internationally, efforts to reshape Samsung and find new areas of growth may face a more significant challenge. Lee Jae-yong had been trying to reshape Samsung by selling off unprofitable divisions or ones that seemed to have limited growth prospects, such as its printer business, while at the same time move into promising new fields like autonomous driving. Will shareholders of companies such as Harmon International * reconsider selling to Samsung and will other potential acquisition targets in promising areas look to more stable situations for merger partners instead of entertaining an offer from Samsung? Given the potential constraints on Samsung’s leadership, the reshaping of Samsung as a corporate entity is likely to slow.

Should Samsung Take Risks or Be Risk Averse?

The natural instinct of a company in a crisis is to minimize risks. Since the product design for this year’s new Galaxy and Galaxy Note models has already begun, any new features under consideration will likely be included in the Galaxy 8, since it release is expected to be in either March or April. However, in light of last year’s troubles with the Galaxy Note 7, there may be a temptation to play things safe with this year’s Note model and only include tested features that are popular in the Galaxy 8.

Playing it safe on design, though, could be the bigger risk for Samsung. The smartphone industry is quick moving, and if Samsung does little to innovate and differentiate itself from up and coming producers like Xiaomi, while allowing Apple to gain a bigger lead, it could find itself in the same position it was until recently with an increasing challenge from both high end producers and low end producers to its market share. Nokia and Motorola were both once dominate producers and were quickly surpassed by others. Regardless of the duration of Lee Jae-yong’s absence, Samsung will need to avoid becoming risk averse in the smartphone industry to maintain its position.

While South Korea has a complicated relationship with the chaebol, should Lee Jae-yong be convicted it would perhaps be a sad irony that one of South Korea’s most progressive third generation chaebol heirs would be taken down by scandal that represents much of the old Korea – in which there was an expectation that for companies to get along they had to do favors for the government and that the government could do them favors in return.

*Shareholders of Harmon International approved the sale to Samsung after this blog was initially published.

Troy Stangarone is the Senior Director for Congressional Affairs and Trade at the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Photo from JCDecaux Creative Solution’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

Kyle Ferrier

As the Choi Soon-sil scandal has unfolded over the past several months the Korean public’s dissatisfaction with major Korean conglomerates known as chaebols has become second only to Park Geun-hye herself. Allegations of Park leveraging her political position to exchange favors with chaebols, particularly Samsung, are at the core of the public backlash. A recent poll showed about two thirds of Koreans not only view chaebols unfavorably, but as a drag on the economy, many citing growing inequality and corruption to back their response. While these criticisms may seem antithetical to Korean national pride in brands that have helped make the country a major global player, they are emblematic of a complicated love-hate dynamic in an economy many argue is too dependent on chaebols.

Socio-economic issues linked to the dominance of chaebols have prompted numerous attempts to systematically reform their rules, most recently by President Park in 2013, but have produced little change. Although the current scandal is hardly the first caused by blurred lines between business interests and politicians, mounting public scrutiny is unprecedented. Yet, is it enough to cause a major structural transition in the Korean economy?

The clearest example of the Korean draw to chaebols is a culture of striving to work for these companies. Working for a chaebol carries an almost unparalleled air of success and stability. The larger the chaebol, the greater the prestige for being in its employ. Samsung’s entrance exam is unsurprisingly quite popular with about 100,000 test takers in 2011 doubling to 200,000 by 2014, though only one in ten would secure a job that year. In 2015, Samsung had to switch to a new test to cut down on the overwhelming volume of exams by introducing separate screening assessments beforehand. This heightened competition for Samsung is indicative of a larger issue now in Korea: high youth unemployment.

Youth unemployment in Korea, defined for people aged 15 to 29, reached its highest point ever last year at 9.8 percent. For those 25 to 29, the unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, the highest point since 1999. Korean students consistently score among the highest achieving in the world—though not without high social costs which exacerbate the hardships of unemployment—yet there are not nearly enough new high skill jobs to meet demand. Chaebols are simply creating too few positions and the combination of their huge market share as well as the culture of working for these groups has made SME growth difficult. Young Koreans are keenly aware of this, as the recent poll revealing two thirds of Koreans do not view chaebols favorably also showed 75 percent of those in their 20s and 30s share the same sentiment.

Widespread perceptions of rising inequality stemming from a chaebol-centric economy are also not unfounded. A recent IMF report found the top 10 percent of Koreans earn as much as 45 percent of total income, earning Korea the unenviable title of most economically unequal country in the Asia-Pacific. Nepotism in chaebols is a highly visible contributor to this issue: leadership in most chaebols is passed down within the family and it is not uncommon for scarce entry-level openings to be filled by relatives of current employees. Parallels to the current scandal are hard to ignore. Also at play in the growing income polarization are a number of other factors, including an outdated labor regime consisting of regular and non-regular workers—who receive less pay and enjoy practically no job security.

The income disparity between regular and non-regular workers is greatly amplified when comparing chaebols to SMEs. According to the Korean Ministry of Employment and Labor, in 2015, compared to regular workers in chaebols, non-regular chaebol workers were compensated 65 percent as much, regular SME employees 50 percent as much, and non-regular SME workers 35 percent as much. It also worth noting that chaebols only employ around 10 percent of the population. Attempts to reform the labor system, much like those intended to directly govern chaebols, continue to be unsuccessful.

As several compelling op-eds have highlighted, even if the Constitutional Court upholds Park’s impeachment these problems will still remain, a notion many Koreans would find hard to disagree with. Among the potential presidential candidates Lee Jae-myung has been the most outspoken against the likes of Hyundai and Samsung, but Park and her predecessors’ record of actualizing campaign promises on chaebol reform is not promising. Rather, it suggests the weight of their influence may be too much to move with state-led reforms alone. Although policies are unlikely to change, the massive public response indicates the strength of a cultural shift that can gradually change the Korean economy from the bottom up.

While there are numerous similarities between past scandals and the current one, a key difference to account for the recent protests may be that many Koreans have reached their breaking point. It would be misguided to expect less applicants for Samsung vacancies, but working for a chaebol is starting to no longer be viewed as the end-all and be-all of success in Korea.

Recently innovative startups have been growing in number and in size, drawing from the scores of talented unemployed youth. These companies and other SMEs have greatly benefitted from a government infrastructure to incubate their growth, including billions of dollars in grants, overseas matchmaking, and mentoring. In the past decade, such initiatives to foster innovation and SME growth have been criticized for limited output. However, in many ways the problem has not been the programs themselves but rather a lack of demand, an altogether more difficult issue to tackle and a trend that seems to be reversing on its own.

As SMEs become more attractive places to work it looks as if the best policies to manage the economic dominance of chaebols is to continue to empower entrepreneurship. A stronger base of non-chaebol-dependent SMEs should also make pushing through chaebol regulations and labor reforms more politically feasible. While there is still a long way to go for Korea to build a more diverse economy and a healthier relationship with chaebols, momentum may be moving in the right direction.

Kyle Ferrier is the Director of Academic Affairs and Research at the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Photo from v15ben’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

By Jenna Gibson

“Thank you, @Samsung! We would love to have you!” Donald Trump wrote on his personal Twitter account, linking to a story about a possible plan for the tech company to build a factory for home appliances in the United States.

The article called the announcement by Samsung “A win-win,” saying that “Companies can grab headlines with news of even considering bringing production to the U.S., and the Trump White House benefits from the ability to take credit. These moves may not add up to significant job growth, but it’s hard to beat the PR.”

Trump’s tweet, which was sent only half an hour after the article was posted, may lend credence to their theory.

Post-inauguration, Trump hasn’t yet turned his attention toward Korea, focusing mainly on domestic issues and trade with neighboring Mexico. But trade with the ROK was a regular component of his campaign addresses.

“We spend a fortune on defending South Korea. Now I order thousands and — thousands of television sets here, they come from South Korea. They make so much.  They’re making a fortune.  They’re a behemoth,” Trump said during the CNN-Telemundo Republican debate last February.

Samsung – which makes some of the televisions Trump may be referring to – already manufactures semiconductors at a plant in Austin, Texas in addition to its facilities in South Korea. Samsung has the largest Korean investment in the United States, and Korea as a whole is the 5th fastest growing source of Foreign Direct Investment into the country.

The electronics giant is hardly the only Korean company to consider moving more production to the United States in an effort to head off criticism from the new President – last week, Hyundai Motor Group announced that they plan to increase U.S. investment by 50 percent over the next five years, and may build a new plant to supplement the factory they currently have in Montgomery, Alabama. The company also applied for membership with the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea this year for the first time since 2008.

LG is also considering building a new plant in Tennessee for its TV and home appliances. “This is something that has been under consideration for years at LG, but the current political situation is simply accelerating that timeline for a decision,” according to a source close to the company told Reuters.

On a larger scale, the Korean government has indicated that they will encourage more imports from the United States to balance some of Seoul’s trade surplus. As part of this plan, the finance ministry announced that they will begin importing more U.S. shale gas to meet the country’s energy needs.

Whether Samsung goes through with plans to begin manufacturing appliances in the United States or just wants to stave off the ire of the White House remains to be seen. But the 60,000+ likes Trump’s one tweet got within hours of posting certainly can’t hurt either way.

Jenna Gibson is the Director of Communications at the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Photo from Michael Newman’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

By Troy Stangarone

In the Chinese zodiac, 2016 is the year of the Fire Monkey. Fire Monkeys are said to be ambitious and adventurous, as well as irritable. Despite Donald Trump’s not having been born in the year of the Monkey, looking back, his victory in the U.S. presidential election that year may yet seem fitting. However, rather than being a year reflective of the characteristics of the Fire Monkey, 2016 might be better known as the year of unexpected events around the world and on the Korean peninsula. Whether it was the British vote to leave the European Union in June or the impeachment of the South Korean President Park Geun-hye in December, 2016 will be remembered for a series of unexpected events and the questions they have raised about how they may shape the future.

As we take our annual look back at the events that helped to shape the Korean peninsula during the past year, it is also an opportunity to review the events we highlighted on The Peninsula in our annual 10 Issues to Watch For on The Korean Peninsula in 2016 blog. For a year that was dominated by such a large number of unexpected events, our annual look ahead to the events of the coming year holds up surpassingly well. However, while our look ahead was correct on the importance of many events in 2016, those same events also often played out in surprising ways that will have significance beyond what we expected earlier this year. One example of this is the U.S. presidential elections. While U.S. elections always hold significance for the Korean peninsula, few foresaw the election of Donald Trump and the implications his presidency could have for the peninsula early in 2016.

With that said, here’s a brief look back at the 10 issues we highlighted and what happened:

1. No Significant Progress with North Korea – After North Korea began 2016 with a nuclear test, the international community moved towards placing greater pressure on Pyongyang. This included sanctions at the UN, which would later be strengthened, to cut off North Korea’s trade in minerals such as coal, and bilateral sanctions by the United States to cut North Korea off from the global financial system. As was expected at the time little progress was made with North Korea on resolving the nuclear issue, but the one surprising element was that rather than try to find a way to engage North Korea after a new round of sanctions, South Korea went all in on pressuring the North with the closure of the Kaesong Industrial Complex and lobbying countries to cut their ties with Pyongyang. While we were right on the broader element of there being little progress with North Korea and how structural issues such as the U.S. elections and sanctions would inhibit progress, the strength of South Korea’s stance was one of the unexpected turns of 2016.
2. If There Will Be Another Round of Family Reunions – If there was going to be progress in relations between North and South Korea it was going to require both countries to separate the nuclear issue from other issues in their relationship. Neither side was able to do so in 2016, which is regrettable for both the humanitarian burden that it places on the divided families and for the reality that family bonds will be one of the important ingredients for unification if it takes place at some point in the future. The longer that families remain divided the further apart the two Koreas are likely to drift.
3. Could a China-North Korea Summit Still Happen? – This is one issue that was fairly straight forward. While there had been suggestions in late 2015 that Chinese President Xi Jinping might finally meet Kim Jong-un thanks to improving relations, the nuclear test in January ended what little chance there may have been for a China-North Korea summit.
4. Korea-Japan Relations – When looking at Korea-Japan relations heading into 2016, clearly there had been prior progress. At the same time, it seemed unlikely that there would be the type of progress that the U.S. might have liked and the prospect for backsliding existed. While Japan did approve money for the comfort women fund, the agreement itself remains controversial in South Korea and may face pressure under the next administration. As for the comfort woman statue near the Japanese Embassy, it remains an issue for the local government of Seoul. While progress was made in relations, unsurprisingly, much work remains.
5. How the U.S. Elections Could Impact Policy – Here we were right about how the political parties viewed the situation in Korea, but wrong about the overall impact of the elections. While we foresaw the critiques of the Obama administration’s policy and the push back on issues such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the degree to which then candidate Donald Trump would shift the debate with his repeated push on the question of South Korea’s contributions to U.S. troops on the peninsula, and suggestions that the U.S. might withdraw those troops and allow South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons, and that a candidate with these views would win the presidency, were clearly unforeseen. The ultimate result of the election is potentially much more significant for the peninsula than anyone might have imagined at the beginning of the year.
6. South Korean National Assembly Elections – Here we saw the fairly divided electorate give the opposition Minjoo Party a slim majority and a display of surprising strength by Ahn Cheol-soo’s new People’s Party. However, the impeachment of Park Geun-hye likely means that any signals the National Assembly elections may have had for the presidential election in 2017 no longer matter.
7. Cooperation Between Korea and China in the G20 – At the G20 in China, South Korea worked with China as expected to help advance the agenda, but IMF quota reform and global safety nets played less of a role than expected during 2016.
8. K-Pop’s Next U.S. Breakthrough – While K-Pop and Hallyu more generally remained popular in much of the world, especially with the release of Descendants of the Sun, K-Pop continued to have difficulty breaking into the U.S. market. The English language debut of CL, Lifted, was expected to give K-Pop its first breakout in the U.S. since Psy, but the album has yet to produce a chart single in the United States.
9. South Korea’s Trade Policy – Events on the trade front have played out largely as expected. While TPP, should it be revived, will be an issue for the next Korean administration, there has been significant progress on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) talks that include the ASEAN, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea.
10. Has Samsung Turned the Corner? – After two difficult years Samsung had turned the corner in 2016 with the successful launch of the Galaxy 7 and the new Edge. However, all of Samsung’s progress melted down with the battery issues of the Galaxy Note 7. As a result, next year will again be a key year for Samsung as it once more looks to turn another corner and rebuild consumer confidence after the issues with the Note 7.

Beyond the events that we expected, here is a look at some of the unexpected events that helped to shape 2016:

1. Multiple Nuclear Tests and the Advancement of North Korea’s Nuclear Program – Before we even published our look ahead to 2016, North Korea had conducted its first nuclear test of the year. It would go on to break with its pattern of only conducting a single test in a year by conducting a second nuclear test in September. While much attention has focused on the significant increase in North Korean missile launches and tests in 2016, the most significant step may have been in the advances the program took in developing a second strike capability. Though initial tests of a submarine launched ballistic missile failed, North Korea had made progress before the year’s end.
2. The Closure of the Kaesong Industrial Complex – South Korea took the unexpected step of closing the Kaesong Industrial Complex in response to North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2016. The closure was significant for several reasons. Not that long beforehand South Korea had been pushing to internationalize the complex to avoid the prospect of the complex being shut down after North Korea had withdrawn its workers in 2013 for political purposes. Kaesong also held symbolic importance as the last remaining connection between North and South Korea, as well as the last vestige of the prior sunshine policy. While closing Kaesong was a significant step it may have played a role in encouraging the international community to take stronger steps against North Korea.
3. International Sanctions on North Korea – While there is nothing necessarily surprising about the international community sanctioning North Korea over its nuclear test, what is significant about the current round of sanctions are the steps that they take to try and limit North Korea’s ability to continue its nuclear program. There are now requirements to inspect North Korean cargo, even that of North Korean diplomats, and caps have been placed on North Korean exports of coal while bans have been placed on other mineral exports. The United States has moved to cut North Korea off from the international financial system and has set in place steps to use secondary sanctions to go after those who enable North Korea. While sanctions are unlikely to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue on their own, they were significantly strengthened in 2016.
4. The Political Crisis in South Korea – The corruption and influence peddling scandal surround Choi Soon-sil, a longtime confidant of President Park Geun-hye, engulfed South Korea is a political scandal that has seen millions of South Koreans protest in the streets and the impeachment of Park Geun-hye by the National Assembly. As a result of the scandal, South Korea faces an uncertain political future in 2017. Even before the new year begins, there has already been a split within the conservative Saenuri Party with 29 members leaving to form the New Conservative Party for Reform.
5. THAAD and Dispute with China – Beyond sanctions, one of the steps being taken by the United States and South Korea to deter aggression by North Korea is the deployment of the Thermal High Altitude Arial Defense, or THAAD. This is a step that has been strongly opposed by China which sees it as undermining Beijing’s own interests in the region. While the evidence seems thin to date that China has actually done anything more than complain, there have been concerns that China will retaliate economically against South Korea by restricting its exports of Hallyu to the China and Chinese tourism in South Korea.  Taking such steps would harm Chinese as well as South Korean interests.

Troy Stangarone is the Senior Director for Congressional Affairs and Trade at the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Photo from Gage Skidmore’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

By Juni Kim

The runaway success of Kakao’s mobile messaging app can be easily seen by its near universal use in South Korea. From high school students to working professionals, three-quarters of South Korea’s 50 million residents use Kakao’s free messaging service monthly with an additional 10 million monthly users outside of South Korea. Despite rapid growth over the past decade, Kakao faced a daunting hurdle when the South Korean Fair Trade Commission (FTC) labeled it and other similarly– sized companies as “big business groups” this past April. The new designation subjected Kakao to the FTC’s antitrust regulations, which also applies to South Korea’s much larger chaebol conglomerates like Samsung and Hyundai.

The FTC designation illustrates the fear that smaller Korean companies hold of potentially being caught by tighter regulations after continued growth. Companies like Kakao are caught in the crossfire of the Korean government’s efforts to promote growth in smaller firms while simultaneously attempting to manage antitrust regulations.

Criticism and controversy surrounded the new designation, which also labeled companies Celltrion, Harim Group, Korea Investment Holdings, Kumho Petrochemical, and SH Corporation as big business groups. Industry analysts noted the unfair grouping of Kakao’s total assets with much larger companies. According to Kakao’s website, the company’s total assets are about 5.19 trillion won ($4.5 billion US), easily dwarfed by conglomerate companies such as Hyundai Motor’s reported total assets of 165 trillion won ($143 billion) and Samsung Electronic’s assets of 230 trillion won ($200 billion).

In the wake of the FTC designation, the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI), a lobbying group for South Korean companies, released a report critical of the new designation. It stated that the designation excessively regulates companies like Kakao, citing the total of 60 newly assigned regulations authorized through 27 acts. Lee Chul-haeng, the FKI head of corporate policy, publicly stated, “We demand that the government either raise the asset floor for large corporation from 5 trillion won to 10 trillion won, or limit the list of large companies to the top 30 in terms of asset size.”

Concerns of excessive regulations on companies like Kakao have not gone unnoticed by South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Since March 2014, President Park’s administration has held five top-level meetings to discuss and encourage deregulation reform in an effort to encourage economic growth among burgeoning industries. The most recent meeting occurred at the Blue House only a few weeks after Kakao’s designation as a big business group. President Park specifically addressed Kakao’s growth challenges in that meeting by stating, “Companies like Kakao will be restricted if they are labeled as big business groups. In this situation, what company would want to continue to grow?” She further added, “Labeling big business groups as conglomerates is a system only found in Korea, and it needs to change according to the times.”

The FTC ultimately yielded and announced this month that the designation of big business groups will be changed from combined company assets of 5 trillion won to 10 trillion won, which effectively removes Kakao from the list. FTC Secretary General Shin Young-sun acknowledged industry criticisms of the previous designation by stating, “If the same level of regulation is applied to all these companies, it could affect the growth of the smaller members of the group, and we have decided to raise the standard.”

Kakao executives surely welcomed the news of the raised FTC designation. Kakao’s current plans for a web-based bank would have been subject to stiff restrictions if the FTC designation remained in place. However, challenges still remain for Kakao as it continues to expand. Despite its relative small size compared to larger chaebols, Kakao has been investigated before for possible abuses of its dominant market power in South Korea. Any further similar actions by Kakao may put it under the scrutiny of the FTC again and justify restrictive measures. Although it may be far from becoming its own chaebol, Kakao is not immune to future antitrust regulations.

Juni Kim is the Program Manager and Executive Assistant at the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI). Jiwon Nam, an Intern at KEI and graduate student at the University of Maine, also contributed to this blog. The views expressed here are the author’s alone. 

Photo from Ben Hancock’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

By Mark Tokola, Phil Eskeland, Troy Stangarone, Jenna Gibson, and Kyle Ferrier

In the aftermath of North Korea’s nuclear test, 2016 has already begun with a new crisis on the Korean peninsula. As the United States, South Korea, and the rest of the international community work together to address the growing threat from Pyongyang’s expanding nuclear and missile programs, one of the top issues to follow for 2016 will be whether increased pressure through sanctions can bring North Korea back to the negotiating table. However, 2016 will also see elections in both the United States and South Korea, as well as Korea potentially playing an important role in China’s hosting of the G20 later this year. With that in mind, here are 10 economic and foreign policy issues to follow:

No Significant Progress with North Korea

North Korea’s nuclear test makes the need for progress both more necessary and increasingly difficult. However, even in the absence of North Korea’s nuclear test the structural nature of politics in the United States would have made significant progress difficult. With only a year left on President Barack Obama’s term in office there is little incentive for North Korea to engage in a sustained way and the Obama Administration may be increasingly tied up with the worsening situation in the Middle East.

At the same time, while South Korea has seen moments of potential progress with North Korea over the last two years, such as the surprise visit by senior North Korean officials to the Incheon Games, North Korea has quickly backed away from more sustained progress. While the Park Geun-hye Administration will continue to try and engage North Korea at an appropriate time in the future, expect Pyongyang to continue to back away from sustained engagement.

Key things to look for include whether talks restart with North Korea on its nuclear program, how potential unilateral sanctions by the United States impact North Korea, whether South Korea is able to separate humanitarian issues from the nuclear issue, and how North Korea responds to increasing pressure from the international community.

If There Will Be Another Round of Family Reunions

In October, around 100 South Koreans were able to cross the DMZ to reunite with members of their family that they haven’t seen since the peninsula was divided 65 years ago. The occasion was emotional for those who went, but also for the growing number of Koreans, now in their 80s and 90s, who may not have the chance to participate.

This has become a priority for the Park Administration, particularly after the August agreement. With the successful organization of one round of reunions a few months later, things seem to be looking up and there is a strong possibility of at least one proposed trip in 2016. The problem is precedent and North Korea’s nuclear test – although these reunions have happened sporadically over the past decade, no amount of dedication on the part of the South Korean government has made them a regular occurrence.

Whether we will see another reunion in 2016 depends on the willingness of the North Korean regime and the ability of the two governments to separate the humanitarian issue and the nuclear issue. Unfortunately, Pyongyang has tended to see these reunions more as a bargaining chip. This means these meetings, which are becoming more urgent by the day, may only happen as long as North Korea feels they can get something in return.

Could a China-North Korea Summit Still Happen?

Chinese President Xi Jinping has now met South Korean President Park Geun-hye six times, and remarkably has yet to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.  Might 2016 be the year when President Xi finally meets the leader of the only country with which China has a military alliance?  Prior to North Korea’s nuclear test improving ties made it seem as though it could happen, but now there is no reason to believe that a meeting is in the offing, and probably would require a change of circumstances to occur.

Beyond the nuclear test, Kim Jong-un has shown a reluctance to travel outside of North Korea, having passed up opportunities in 2015 to attend high-profile World War II commemorations in both Moscow and Beijing.  In Beijing, President Park stood adjacent to Xi Jinping at the ceremonies, while North Korean representative Choe Ryong Hae was over forty protocol places away.  Some commentators believed that the appearance of China’s number five official, Liu Yunshan, next to Kim Jong-un at the October 2015 Pyongyang parade marking the 70^th anniversary of North Korean People’s Party rule might have signaled a warming of Chinese-DPRK relations, but the Liu’s official ranking simply mirrored the relatively low level of Chinese Embassy attendance at official events in Pyongyang – showing more a frost than a thaw.  So long as North Korea pursues the acquisition of nuclear weaponry, a program which China opposes, association with North Korea will remain China’s preeminent foreign policy failing – one which China will be reluctant to spotlight.

Korea-Japan Relations

In 2015, Northeast Asia saw several steps to improving Korea-Japan relations during a year that marked the 50^th anniversary of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II, celebrating the liberation of the Korean peninsula from Imperial Japan.  Two notable steps were a bilateral summit meeting held in November between ROK President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and the year-end agreement on the “comfort women” issue.  While these actions will help the two governments to work together on other issues of mutual interest, particularly in confronting the threat posed by North Korea to peace in the region in light of its fourth nuclear test, it is not a given that relations between Korea and Japan, particularly among its citizenry, will advance to the level sought by the United States.  Key benchmarks to look for in the coming year to determine the level of improvement will be action by the Japanese Diet to appropriate $8.3 million for the reparation fund; the receptivity of surviving Korean comfort women to accept the reparations (if approved) from Japan; and the status of the comfort women statute in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.

How the U.S. Elections Could Impact Policy

The U.S. campaign season will kick into high gear shortly after the holidays when the first votes will be cast in the presidential caucus in Iowa on February 1^st.  Unlike some other foreign policy issues, there is little difference between the two main parties in the U.S. regarding the U.S.-Korea alliance.  Relations between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea (ROK) are excellent and should not be an issue in the U.S. elections.  In addition, as the fastest growing racial group in the United States, candidates will make specific appeals to Asian-Americans for votes, particularly in the politically-sophisticated Korean-American community.

Nevertheless, the U.S. presidential elections will have a robust debate on the use of military force and diplomacy in response to terrorist and other national security threats (“hawks” vs. “doves”) and the stand-off on the Korean peninsula may be used to support their point of view.  However, because Kim Jong-un started the new year with yet another nuclear test, expect legislative action in Congress to strengthen sanctions against the DPRK and GOP presidential candidates (and, to a lesser degree, the Democratic candidates) to criticize the Obama Administration’s policy of “strategic patience” with the North as “benign neglect.”  Nonetheless, the underlying strategic importance of Asia will remain a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy regardless of who is in office because America’s long-term challenges come from larger mega-trends that emerge from Pacific Rim, such as China’s assent on the world stage and various other economic, demographic, and environmental issues.  Also, because of the political sensitivity of trade agreements in the U.S., do not expect a Congressional vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) until the “lame-duck” session after the November 8^th election at the earliest.  Finally, because of the lack of trust in the Obama Administration in numerous areas by the Republican-led Congress, no further legislative action on immigration reform (except more restrictions) is likely until a new president is sworn into office.

South Korean National Assembly Elections

On April 13, 2016, a national election will be held in South Korea to select all members of the National Assembly.  Because National Assembly elections are held every four years, and presidential elections every five, the two elections rarely fall in the same year and even when they do, they are not held concurrently because the former are in April and the latter in December.  The election to select President Park Geun-hye’s successor will be held in December 2017.  Presidents may only serve one term.

As in U.S. politics, South Korean National Assembly elections have the character of mid-term elections, with more attention paid to presidential elections.  They are nevertheless important because presidents have difficulty enacting legislative programs if control of the National Assembly passes into opposition hands.  The April 13, 2016 elections will be worth watching for three reasons:  (1) They will be a test of political sentiment heading into the 2017 presidential election year; (2) Because of a Constitutional Court ruling that the largest constituencies can have no more than double the population of the smallest constituencies, boundaries are now being redrawn with uncertain consequences for the parties and even the total number of National Assembly membership; and (3) They will test yet again whether the habitually riven center-left and left elements of South Korean politics are able to pull together to challenge the more unified, ruling Saenuri Party.

Cooperation Between Korea and China in the G20

Though China will utilize the G20 presidency to promote new agenda items that will prove to be far too ambitious, the need for cooperation in the forum on key issues will help foster closer ties between South Korea and China.

As the co-chair of the International Financial Architecture Working Group (IFA WG), South Korea will play an important role in China’s G20 presidency. The IFA WG is charged with advancing proposals in areas that are likely to be priorities for Beijing’s agenda, including strengthening the role of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights and global financial safety nets.

Additionally, China and South Korea have incentives to work more closely on development and trade as slowing global trade disproportionately impacts the domestic growth of both economies. While resolving the divide on development-related trade norms continues to be too onerous, Seoul’s addition of development to the G20 agenda in 2010 help make it a potential mediator between advanced and emerging economies like China on trade issues in a period of uncertainty in the WTO.

K-Pop’s Next U.S. Breakthrough

People have been predicting the demise of the Korean Wave almost as soon as the term was coined. But there is no doubt that awareness of K-Pop has reached new heights in the United States in 2015 – with popular site Buzzfeed sending a team to LA’s KCon, Big Bang holding K-pop’s largest ever American tour, and of course Psy releasing his new video, which racked up more than 64 million views in under a month.

However, while awareness of K-pop has surely grown in the United States in the aftermath of Gangnam Style, we may not be hearing Korean on the radio again any time soon. Many Korean artists have tried and failed to make it big in the American market. 2ne1’s CL is the next at bat and may be the one to break this trend once her much-anticipated American debut album gets a release date. In many ways she is the ideal candidate to break the trend. Fluent in English, free from the bubblegum cuteness of many idol groups, and supported by some of the most successful producers and collaborators in the world. Her success will largely depend on how well she is able to mold herself to the American taste – but she may just bring a little bit of her Korean pop roots into the public awareness as well.

South Korea’s Trade Policy

Because of the aforementioned political reality in the United States, South Korea will not join the TPP in 2016.  In fact, it may take a few years for Korea to formally join the TPP because of the difficulties surrounding the ratification process in TPP member countries.  As a result, after ratifying Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with China, Vietnam, and New Zealand in 2015, the ROK is expected not to wait for the TPP and continue to negotiate a free trade agreement with five countries in Central America, a trilateral FTA with China and Japan, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RECP).  Because overseas markets are critically important to Korea’s domestic economy, the ROK is expected to at least make measurable progress on concluding these talks in 2016.  Because the President Park Geun-hye only has two more years left in office, it is important for these talks to conclude before then; otherwise, the benefits of these agreements will be further delayed as the new administration will review previous policies for possible adjustment.  In addition, if Korea is not able to join the TPP by December 2017, a new Korean administration will take some time to review the efficacy of joining this agreement.

Has Samsung Turned the Corner?

After nearly two years of negative earnings, Samsung saw revenue and profits increase in the 3^rd quarter of 2015. The increase in profits, however, was due to growth in Samsung’s semiconductor and display divisions. The smartphone division, which faces high end challenges from Apple and low end challenges from Chinese and Indian firms like Xiaomi and Micromax, saw revenues increase but profits continue to decline as it made a misstep by under producing the popular new Edge line of phones and the Galaxy 6 underwhelmed. At the end of 2015 Samsung replaced the head of its smartphone division with Koh Dongjin who previously headed up Samsung’s mobile research and development, to return the division to profitability. With increasing competition and two years of decline, Koh’s efforts to turn Samsung’s smartphone division around will be one of the key economic issues to watch in South Korea.

Mark Tokola is the Vice President of the Korea Economic Institute of America, Phil Eskeland is the Executive Director of Operations and Policy,  Troy Stangarone is the Senior Director for Congressional Affairs and Trade, Jenna Gibson is the Director of Communications, and Kyle Ferrier is the Director of Academic Affairs and Research. The views expressed here are the authors’ alone.

Image designed by Jenna Gibson of the Korea Economic Institute of America.

By Troy Stangarone

As we look back at the events that helped to shape the Korean peninsula in 2015, it is also an opportunity to review the events we highlighted on The Peninsula in our annual 10 Issues to Watch For on The Korean Peninsula in 2015 blog and the key events that we did not predict.

Looking back at the 10 issues raised in last year’s blog, all have resonated on the Korean peninsula this year, but not all in the ways we thought they might. On five of the issues, things have largely played out as we expected, while one did not and for four others the outcomes are less clear.

Here’s a brief look back at the 10 issues and what happened:

1.      Dealing with North Korea: Understanding North Korea is never easy and it is only made more difficult by the regime’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. One area we highlighted to watch in 2015 was progress on North Korea’s weapons programs and discussion of the deployment of the U.S. Thermal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea to protect against the nuclear and missile threat from North Korea. While North Korea took a major step towards developing submarine launched ballistic missiles, which would give it a second strike capability, South Korea has indicated it will not be discussing the deployment of THAAD with the United States. On this issue, our prediction was half right as North Korea has continued developing its weapons programs, but there has been less progress on deploying THAAD, or some other missile defense system than we expected.

2.      Key Summits in 2015: Here we highlighted a series of key summits for the year ahead. While Kim Jong-un ultimately did not go to Russia for the May 9^th ceremony commemorating the end of World War II or make any international visits, thus eliminating the prospect of a meeting with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, each of the summits played a key role this year. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo did make a positive statement on issue of history with the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II approaching, even if it did not meet everyone’s hopes. Trilateral summits among Korea, China, and Japan also resumed. Lastly, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a bilateral summit meeting with President Park in what could become an important relationship in the future.

3.      Korea-Russia Relations: In 2014, North Korea began courting Russia and our expectation was that greater cooperation would be announced at a meeting between Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, that meeting never happened and cooperation between the two seems to have fizzled. Though, Russia and South Korea did announce efforts to expand relations at the end of the year.

4.      Better Relations Between Korea and Japan: Here our key insight was correct, as the bilateral summit meeting took place between President Park and Prime Minister Abe after Prime Minister Abe had issued his statement on World War II. At the summit meeting, both sides agreed to work on resolving the Comfort Women issue and recently announced that resolution laying the groundwork for improved relations between the two countries.

5.      Constructing Legacies: With President Barack Obama’s term in office coming towards an end, our expectation for 2015 was that he would seek to build on his legacy as president, but not look to North Korea for a potential legacy issue. While President Obama has cemented deals on Iran’s nuclear program and climate change, there has been no progress on North Korea. For President Park, the agreement reached with North Korea in August to reduce tensions seemed to be a way forward, but subsequent talks with North Korea failed to make progress.

6.      Two Major Moves on Trade: South Korea has had an ambitious free trade agenda  that we expected to continue in 2015 with two major efforts – concluding and implementing an FTA with China and making efforts to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The FTA with China was implemented in December, but while South Korea has continued to express interest in joining TPP, the agreement’s late conclusion has limited Seoul’s ability to join.

7.      A New Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement: The United States and South Korea were looking to conclude a new agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, or 123 agreement, to replace an extension to the 1974 agreement that was set to expire next year. The two sides successfully reached an agreement in June of 2015 and updated agreement is now in effect.

8.      The Diversification of South Korea’s Energy Supplies: South Korea is highly dependent on imported fuel with more than 85 percent of its petroleum imports passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Our expectation was that in 2015 South Korea would begin to diversify those supplies. While there have been efforts to import more condensate from the United States, low petroleum prices have made imports of U.S. LNG less attractive. However, now that Congress has passed legislation allowing for the export of oil, this will be an issue to continue to watch in the years ahead.

9.      Samsung’s Future and Its Frenemy Relationship with Apple: After a loss of market share in key markets such as China and India for its smartphones, as well as falling revenues and profits, 2015 was expected to be an important year for Samsung to reverse its fortunes while managing its beneficial and competitive relationship with Apple. While Samsung saw an increase in profits in the 3^rd quarter, it was due to strong results in the semiconductor and display sectors as its smartphone segment continued to face challenges. It relationship with Apple continued to remain complex as Samsung has appealed part of their legal case with Apple to the U.S. Supreme Court, but also been chosen by Apple to supply microprocessors and displays for the iPhone.

10.  Feeling the Effects of Social Change in Korea: This was perhaps our most bold insight for 2015 and in truth one that reflected more long-term trends rather than issues that might specifically come to a head over the past year. As South Korea ages and continues to grow in prosperity, it will face the social changes that come with those trends. The level of social welfare and the definition of what it means to be Korean are issues that will continue to shape South Korea. Some social issues, such as public health, came to the fore in 2015 due to outside events such as the spread of Middle East Repertory Syndrome.

Beyond the issues we expected to see addressed in 2015, other important developments included:

1.      North Korea’s Provocation in the DMZ: On August 4, two South Korean soldiers were maimed after stepping on landmines placed by North Korea in areas of the DMZ that are known to be patrolled by South Korea. This raised tensions along the DMZ as South Korea responded by resuming broadcasts from loudspeakers across the DMZ and North Korea threatened to attack the loudspeakers. The crisis was ultimately resolved as the two sides reached an agreement for North Korea to apologize, South Korea to suspend the broadcasts, and the two sides to arrange for a reunion of separated families.

2.      October Family Reunions: One of the positive outcomes of the August provocation was the two sets of family reunions held in October. The first family reunion saw some 100 South Koreans meet their family members for the first time since the Korean War and another 250 were able to do so during the second reunion.

3.      Agreement on the Comfort Women: While not accepted by all of the Comfort Women, the agreement by Japan to issue an apology and provide compensation was one of the major unforeseen events of 2015.

4.      Middle East Repertory Syndrome (MERS): South Korea faced a medical emergency earlier this year as MERS spread through the country causing the death of 38 individuals and another 16,000 to be quarantined.

5.      The Passing of Kim Young-sam: A former activist for democracy who later became president of South Korea passed away at the age of 87.

Troy Stangarone is the Senior Director for Congressional Affairs and Trade at the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Photo from Eugene Lim’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

By Mark Tokola, Troy Stangarone, and Nicholas Hamisevicz

Last year saw a series of significant events on the Korean peninsula. On the economic front, South Korea concluded free trade agreements with Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Vietnam, and reached substantial conclusion on a deal with its largest trading partner, China. While inter-Korean relations avoided the pitfalls of 2013 when the Kaesong Industrial Complex was closed for nearly half a year, the hope that a surprise visit by senior North Korean officials to the Incheon Games would lead to deeper dialogue with North Korea has yet to be fulfilled. With more work to be done on the trade front and in inter-Korean relations, here are 10 economic and foreign policy issues to follow in the year ahead:

Dealing with North Korea in 2015

It has been said that the more things change, the more they stay the same and 2014 was a year where relations with North Korea often seemed like change but more of the same. From the family reunions to the visit to the Incheon games by senior North Korean officials, opportunities to build on the relationship soon fell back to familiar patterns. Will 2015 will be another year such year for the U.S.-ROK alliance and its relations with North Korea?

While North and South Korea are trying to find ways to have inter-Korean meetings, the two sides are having trouble agreeing to terms for the meetings. Once more military exercises start up, it will be even more difficult for inter-Korean relations to progress.

At the same time, reports suggest North Korea continues to improve its missile and nuclear weapons capabilities. Last year the United States indicated it would like to deploy THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Defense, systems on the Korean Peninsula to help protect U.S. troops and South Korea from missile attacks by North Korea. This prompted debates in South Korea about if the deployment of U.S. missile defenses would make South Korea safer, more vulnerable to attack, or draw it into bilateral tensions between the United States and China, as well as Russia to a lesser extent. South Koreans also discussed whether their country should build their own missile defense system. A slight compromise would be to have the systems on U.S. bases in South Korea. Whatever the determination is for the U.S.-Korea alliance, North Korea will likely continue to improve its missile and nuclear weapon technology and therefore keeping the issue of missile defense at the forefront in 2015.

Key Summits in 2015

This year will also bring a series of potentially critical summits between the leaders of Asia. Possibly the most intriguing is the potential for Kim Jong-un to make his first overseas visit as the leader of North Korea. Russia invited Kim Jong-un to attend a ceremony in Moscow on May 9^th celebrating the end of World War II. Reports suggest Kim Jong-un has likely accepted the invitation. At the same time, Russia has indicated that it has extended an invited Park Geun-hye and Xi Jinping as well, raising the question of whether either would choose to meet with Kim Jong-un bilaterally.

What are the prospects for a Park Geun-hye – Kim Jong-un summit in 2015? The Russia visit would be the best opportunity, but that might be politically difficult for Park despite more than 80 percent of Koreans indicating in a recent Asan Institute survey that an inter-Korean summit is necessary.

In May, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe Shinzo will likely visit the United States. If he visits, the U.S. is likely to quietly encourage Abe to make a positive statement on the anniversary of World War II that would help bring countries closer together rather than remain distant because of historical issues. Korea will be watching this visit closely for comparison with Park Geun-hye’s visit in 2013 and interpreting the level of support the U.S. gives to Japan.

Another summit to look for is a trilateral summit between Korea, China, and Japan. At the end of 2014, Park Geun-hye suggested the resumption of trilateral summits. This would be a welcome move, especially because both Xi and Park seem uncomfortable with a bilateral meeting with Abe. If this occurs before Abe’s statement on World War II, the hope would be the two sides actually try to talk about areas of cooperation moving forward, especially a China-Korea-Japan FTA. However, a discussion that only focused on the historical challenges in the region could encourage Abe to make a statement more to his personal belief rather than for the betterment of Japan both domestically and in foreign relations.

It will also be interesting to see if India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi makes it back to Northeast Asia in 2015. His positive relationship with Abe is well known. Park Geun-hye has only met Modi on the sidelines of an East Asia Summit meeting in November, where she invited him to South Korea. South Korea and India have been doing a better job of having high level meetings between officials, and a summit meeting between the two leaders would demonstrate a commitment to that effort and to improving relations.

Korea-Russian Relations

Russia may find tactical advantages in its recent diplomatic outreach to North Korea.  Russian spokesmen have confirmed that an invitation has been issued to Kim Jong-un to visit Moscow on May 9 to attend the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II.  Russian gestures towards North Korea demonstrate to foreign countries and to the Russian public that Russia is not without friends, despite its increasing isolation.  The outreach may also be intended to signal to U.S. and to the EU that their economic sanctions against Russia carry global costs.  Russia can hope for an economic lifeline from China in terms of energy contracts, and can offer North Korea a lifeline of its own to counterbalance the diplomatic and economic pressure the DPRK is experiencing from the West.

However, Russia’s long-term strategic interest is better served by a cooperative relationship with South Korea rather than the DPRK.  Russia’s trade with South Korea is vastly more important to the Russian economy than are its ties to North Korea.  Furthermore, as China has experienced, being associated with the DPRK’s eccentric, brutal and uncooperative regime bears an ongoing reputational cost in world opinion.  For its part, the ROK would like to ensure that Russia does not serve as an impediment to its project to peacefully unify the Korean peninsula.  Behind the headlines of Kim Jong-un’s possible visit to Moscow, look for increasing, practical cooperation between Russia and the ROK in 2015.

Relations Between Korea and Japan

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan. Combined with 2015 being the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II, there is anticipation and hope that these two occasions can be an impetuses for better relations in Asia, especially between Korea and Japan. The biggest hope is for a bilateral summit meeting between South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. With Prime Minister Abe promising a statement on the anniversary of the end of World War II, it wouldn’t be surprising if President Park waited until after the assessment of that statement to consider meeting with Abe. There is a sense from some on both sides that each country is willing to wait for a new counterpart. However, with the LDP’s victory in the elections in December, it is almost certain that these will be the two leaders for the next three years.

Just before Christmas, the U.S. brokered a deal for a trilateral intelligence sharing arrangement with its two allies in Northeast Asia. From the U.S. perspective, the hope was this trilateral agreement would both satisfy some of the current security needs not being met because of a lack of a GSOMNIA agreement between Korea and Japan as well as being an catalyst for Korea and Japan officially signing and completing a bilateral GSOMNIA between themselves.

Constructing Legacies

In his State of the Union address, President Obama acknowledged he had only a short time left as president. These are important times for any U.S. president as they try to shore up a legacy and accomplish goals they have set for themselves and for the country. Often, these years are marked by efforts in foreign policy. In Asia, U.S. presidents in their last years in office have attempted to reach out and engage North Korea. There is some speculation that this could happen again with the Obama administration; however, recent events make that seem unlikely. Moreover, at a time in his presidency where there could be a possible outreach, North Korea once again has undertaken actions that have antagonized the United States, forced the Obama administration to respond in a tough manner, and reduced the likelihood of the Obama administration having the willingness and political capital to engage North Korea in a positive way. North Korea greeted both President Obama’s election and reelection with missile and nuclear tests, and now they began his last two years in office with the cyber attacks on Sony Pictures. While there could be some engagement, the U.S.-North Korea relationship is more likely to remain antagonistic, especially in 2015.

South Korean President Park Geun-hye will also be thinking about her legacy as she enters the third year of her constitutionally mandated one term, five year presidency. The third year is typically when South Korean presidents try to make their legacy moves as they still have time to implement their plans and the next election cycle has not yet begun. This is especially the case for Park Geun-hye. The year has started off with the focus on inter-Korean relations with the hope that something can come of the annual New Year’s statements that offer openings for dialogue between the two Koreas, but the two sides currently appear unable to find common ground. In addition to North Korea, many will be looking to see if Park Geun-hye can make the moves and reforms necessary in the domestic economy to increase growth.

Two Major Moves on Trade

At the APEC summit in Beijing last year, China and South Korea announced the substantial conclusion of the Korea-China FTA. With expectations that the final details on the agreement will be concluded early this year, the implementation of the Korea-China FTA will place South Korea in the unique position of having FTAs with the United States, the European Union, and China – the world’s three largest economic actors.

In addition to South Korea’s FTAs with the United States, the EU, and China, we should expect to see movement on South Korea’s efforts to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. South Korea announced its interest in joining the agreement being negotiated among Pacific Rim nations in late 2012, but with the increasing prospect of President Obama receiving the Trade Promotion Authority that he needs to conclude the agreement South Korea will likely push to join the talks prior to their conclusion later this year.

A New Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement

The U.S.-South Korea 123 Agreement of 1974, or nuclear cooperation agreement, was extended for two years in 2013. The agreement was set to expire in March of 2014 and governs civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and South Korea. With the agreement set to expire in 2016, the two sides will be looking to conclude a new agreement in 2015.

The major issue in the talks centers around South Korea’s desire to enrich uranium at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle and to reprocess spent nuclear fuel on the back end. For reasons of non-proliferation, the United States has opposed enrichment and reprocessing provisions in new 123 agreements. With the deadline to extend the current agreement approaching, the two sides will be searching for a way to address the United States’ non-proliferation concerns while also meeting South Korea’s nuclear power ambitions. Some potential outcomes include another short-term extension, long-term agreements that either include or do not include enrichment and reprocessing rights, or an agreement tied to a joint pyroprocessing study to develop a more proliferation resistant reprocessing technology.

The Diversification of South Korea’s Energy Suppliers

While South Korea has trace amounts of fossil fuels, it is dependent on imports of fuel from unstable regions to drive its economy. As of 2012, petroleum and other liquid fuels accounted for 41 percent of South Korea’s primary energy consumption, while natural gas accounted for another 17 percent. More than 85 percent of its petroleum imports came from inside the Strait of Hormuz and more than 50 percent of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) comes from the Middle East as well.

That should begin to change in 2015. In 2014, South Korea put in place incentives for refiners to import oil from regions other than the Middle East to diversify the sources of Korea’s petroleum imports, while the United States issued a notification that exports of condensates, a form of ultra-light crude oil, would be allowed.  The combination of these two changes, along with South Korea’s ability to import LNG from the United States under the KORUS FTA, should help South Korea begin a process of diversifying the sources of its energy imports in 2015.

Samsung’s Future and Its Frenemy Relationship with Apple

After a year in which Samsung lost its smartphone lead in key markets such as China and India, and faced a renewed challenge from Apple which introduced widescreen models to compete with the larger Samsung models, especially the Samsung Galaxy Notes, 2015 will be an important year for the South Korean conglomerate. At the same time, American business news followers likely will be confused by alternating headlines which one week will describe ongoing legal battles between Apple and Samsung regarding intellectual property rights, and which the next week will talk about business cooperation between the two companies, such as Apple’s reported use of Samsung processors in its next generation of iPhones.  So, are the two companies rivals or business partners?

As Samsung seeks to turn around declining smartphone sales that saw its corporate profits drop for the first time since 2011 and navigate a leadership transition to Lee Jae Yong, they will likely be both. We saw a similar situation in the past, in which two other companies came to dominate a market, while appearing to be simultaneously competing and cooperating.  Boeing and Airbus have filed countless trade actions against one another, arguing unfair competitive practices.  Boeing generally focuses on what it considers Airbus’ non-commercial financing arrangements with European governments; while Airbus charges that Boeing has been given an unfair advantage through U.S. government military contracting.

In reality, the relationship between extremely large companies such as Apple and Samsung, and Boeing and Airbus, is complex.  They will fundamentally seek to “out compete” each other while at the same time cooperating when it is in their interest to do so to maintain their market position.  We should expect more of this in 2015.

Feeling the Effects of Social Change in Korea

As South Korea’s population ages, increases in wealth, and becomes more socially tolerant and diverse, the effects of those changes will have noticeable effects, even during the short term of the year 2015.  The increasing percentage of the population born in the two decades following the end of the Korean War (the Korean “baby boom”) will put increasing pressure on the ROK’s health care and pension systems.  It may also lead to a reexamination of Korea’s history during the 1960’s and 70’s.  The demographic shift could even create a market for nostalgia-themed popular entertainment and culture as a counterpoint to K-pop.

The increase in wealth is likely to lead to an increased focus on quality of life, particularly among recent college graduates.  Safety and health issues, including Korea’s high suicide rate, are likely to become bigger political topics.  The trend, discernable among all of the world’s advanced economies, towards an increasing acceptance of diversity, and growing concern for the well-being of minorities, immigrant populations, and refugees, will fuel debate in South Korea about the speed of change, and will put further distance between South Korea and North Korea.  As the 2017 national elections begin to appear on the horizon, 2015 will see political debate regarding whether the right can regain broad, popular support, whether the left can unify around a common platform and leadership, and whether a third political force will emerge.  Social change will create the shifting ground upon which all of these debates will take place in 2015.

Mark Tokola is the Vice President of the Korea Economic Institute, Troy Stangarone is the Senior Director for Congressional Affairs and Trade, and Nicholas Hamisevicz is the Director of Research and Academic Affairs. The views expressed here are the authors’ alone.

Image created by Sang Kim of the Korea Economic Institute of America.

By Chad 0’Carroll

In light of a California jury ruling Friday, Samsung now looks set to have to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages for violating hardware and software patents following the conclusion of what may well be seen as a landmark case.  With the verdict seen as a big win for Apple, Samsung shares took an immediate dive of nearly 7.5% on the news, despite their reported intention to appeal the ruling.  But with the U.S. case representing just one of over fifty lawsuits being pursued in ten countries across four continents, what are the implications of the California judgment and what will be the consequences for the two companies and smart phone industry as a whole?

What the U.S. Ruling Means

The California jury found that Samsung infringed upon Apple’s physical design and user interface patents, often willfully, and that several of its products replicated Apple’s trade dress, especially with regarding the iPhone product series.  While Samsung had argued that Apple infringed several of its own patents related to utility and design, the court instead found that its products actually infringed Apple patents in those areas. As such, the jury rejected all of Samsung’s claims against Apple while upholding all of Apple’s patents. The implications for the South Korean conglomerate are therefore substantial.

Most damning of all, of 21 Samsung smartphone and tablet designs raised in the case by Apple, 100% of them were found to breach Apple’s patent 381 (pertaining to a “bounce-back” scroll feature). And on Apple’s two other main claims, an overwhelming majority of Samsung products were shown to have breached patents, with just a handful in each category escaping the breach.

In Samsung’s marginal favor, it was established by jurors that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet (recently banned in the American market by the same judge – Ms. Koh) did not infringe on any physical design patents.  This means Samsung will now be allowed to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on the U.S. market.  But while Samsung may be able to recoup some lost sales profit from Apple, the amount will likely be extremely low in comparison to the $1billion it now owes.

The bottom line is that in the eyes of one patent expert, Samsung has been shown by the outcome of this case to be a “reckless copycat”.  And because some of the infringement is related to Google’s Android operating system, it seems the jury agreed with Steve Jobs’ claim that Android is a “stolen product”.

Reports now suggest that both sides will file for a preliminary trial injunction, which is set for 20 September. That will decide the fate as to which products, if any, will face a ban.  Apple has already outlined 8 Samsung products that they want banned as a result of the California ruling. But as an immediate consequence, Samsung will at the very least be required to pay out $1 billion dollars – although this could potentially be tripled due to Samsung having willfully infringed the patents.

What the ROK Ruling Means:

Before the announcement of the California jury ruling, a Seoul court ruled Friday on a case brought to it by Apple regarding Samsung cell phone and tablet designs.  In contrast to the U.S. case, the South Korean court said that Samsung’s cell phone and tablet computer designs did not copy the look and feel of Apple products, adding that Apple had in fact infringed on several of Samsung’s wireless technology patents.  However, reflecting the unanimity of one element of the California court’s decision, the Seoul court did rule partly in Apple’s favor, saying that several Samsung devices had infringed Apples “bounce-back” scroll feature.

In contrast to the vast volumes of money involved in the California case, as a result of the Seoul ruling Apple will pay 40 million won ($35,400) for infringements while Samsung will pay 25 million won for violating just the one patent.  More cumbersome for both companies is the fact that the court also ordered a ban of a handful of Apple and Samsung cellphone and tablet devices implicated in the patent infringements.  However, given that none of the two manufacturer’s latest devices were implicated, the impact of this development could prove minor.

It is nevertheless of interest that this case result occurred in South Korea, Samsung’s home territory. Patent attorney Jeong Woo-sun said,  “Out of nine countries, Samsung got the ruling that it wanted for the first time in South Korea.”  Some experts have since expressed concern that the ruling might invite a trade war in which South Korean consumers could ultimately lose out.  If Samsung and LG now move to block rivals’ entrance to the ROK market if they do not agree to licensing terms related to some of the standard patents involved in this case, then those companies would either have to bow to the demands or abandon the South Korean market entirely.

What’s Happening Around the World

While developments in the U.S. and South Korea last week reflect two important territories involved in the dispute, there are similar cases taking places across a total now of four continents.  According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, there are over 50 cases open in ten countries, meaning that things could still change in dramatic ways depending on the countries involved.  As of now, the next Apple vs Samsung case set to take place will be in Mannheim in Germany, on September 14.

The evidence so far shows Samsung losing the vast majority of its offensive cases against Apple, having lost three times in Germany, and once in France and Italy.  In the Netherlands it won a tiny amount of damages, but not an injunction, while in the U.S., all claims Samsung raised have now been lost. As indicated above, the only country Samsung has prevailed in cases against Apple has been South Korea.

But Samsung has nevertheless overturned a number of legal challenges raised by Apple, with one notable case in the UK in which the judge said Samsung could continue selling its Galaxy 10.1 tablet because its design wasn’t as “cool” as Apple’s (meaning it could not be confused with the iPad series).

Whether the outcome of the U.S. or ROK decisions will influence other open cases around the world remains to be seen, but right now things do look to be moving in Apple’s favor on a global basis.

Moving Forward

The immediate effect of both cases, should appeals by either company prove unsuccessful, will be payment of the immediate fines as issued by both courts.  But even $1 billion is nevertheless small peanuts for the South Korean conglomerate.  More important is the lasting effect on Samsung’s share price as a result of the legal action in California.  Having lost 7.5% on Friday, should Samsung continue to suffer in the mid to long-term, then investors may lose confidence in the South Korean firm.  One issue that may cause longer term losses is whether or not Apple succeeds in getting Samsung devices banned from sales in the U.S.

Should Apple succeed in banning products from the U.S. or other national markets, then Samsung will have to either update software or even change design elements to ensure their products do not violate Apple patents. Samsung has a proven history in rapidly working around patents, having redesigned software to ensure its products can stay on shelves after the cases that have shown them to have infringed on Apple’s patents. However, in the case of hardware redesign obligations, it can be extremely costly to make the necessary alterations to make a product acceptable for sale, for example by changing the casing or packaging design.  As such, if Apple succeeds in banning some of Samsung’s better selling cell-phones in the U.S. market from a hardware perspective, it could take significant resources for Samsung to get those same products back on shelves.  But Samsung can still take comfort in the fact that its newest models are not on the Apple ban “hit-list” and that it has a strong history in rapidly releasing revised products (unlike Apple’s slow iPhone release pace).

From a more general perspective, moving forward one can expect Samsung to be a lot more careful in the design of its cell phone and tablet devices as a result of the Californian ruling.  Forms of Samsung phones will likely be a lot rounder than Apple devices moving ahead, and from a software perspective we can expect increasing differences between functionality. On the flipside, it is likely Samsung will become even more protective about their own technology, raising the potential for even more litigation between the two companies in future.

In terms of the broader industry, many have been viewing the Apple vs. Samsung case as a proxy war between Apple and Google.  With Android accounting for over 85% of the smart-phone market, consumers currently have few options between iPhone and Android cell-phones.  Confident from this legal win, Apple may now be at pains to prove Steve Jobs’ allegation that Android is a “stolen” operating system, something that if they succeed in proving from a legal perspective, could open up a whole can of worms with regards to the myriad hardware manufacturers that use the Google Android system in their phones.   This could be especially troubling for Samsung, as a legal battle over operating systems could be crippling. While Microsoft’s new Windows Phone has been praised for its innovation, few customers have adopted the phone’s running Microsoft’s platform.  So, was this case really Apple vs Samsung, or the successful start of Apple vs everyone that uses Android? Interestingly, Google is already trying to distance itself from Samsung to avoid just that possibility.

Chad 0’Carroll is the Director of Communications for the Korea Economic Institute. The views represented here are his own.

Photo from Siddartha Thota’s photo stream on flickr Creative Commons.

By Matthew Tranquada

On Monday morning, in a federal courtroom in San Jose, lawyers for Samsung and Apple met to pick a panel of 10 jurors to decide a case worth $2.5 billion in damages for patent infringement. At the heart of the case is Apple’s contention that Samsung’s designs of its Galaxy series of smartphones and tablets infringes on the look and feel of Apple’s devices, many elements of which are patented. This has already resulted in preliminary injunctions against the import and sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1” tablets and Galaxy Nexus smartphones.

Of course, this is far from the only legal battle being waged by the two companies in what has alternately been referred to as a “mobile device war” or “mobile patent war”. Since April 2011, Samsung and Apple have launched over 30 lawsuits on four different continents, with both sides arguing that the other has infringed their intellectual property. At stake are the lucrative profits in the rapidly expanding mobile device space, especially as consumer adoption of smartphones increases and the functionality of tablets improves to rival traditional PCs.

Click to enlarge

While the two companies lock horns in courtrooms around the world, though, they have quickly gobbled up 54% of the global smartphone market by some estimates. At the same time, several other phone makers have seen their share of the market severely diminished as Samsung and Apple pump out popular handset after popular handset. Nokia and Research in Motion (RIM) have moved from dominant positions within the smartphone market to near paupers, forced to layoff workers and drastically alter their business plans to counter their decline. Taiwanese manufacturer HTC, once the darling of the Android OS segment of the market and partners with Google on the Nexus One phone, has seen sharp declines in sales. Motorola Mobility and Palm, Inc. were swallowed up by Google and HP, respectively, after their smartphone strategies failed to win over consumers. And Sony and LG have, for the most part, failed to find solid footing in the smartphone market space outside of their home markets.

Click to enlarge

The lead that Samsung and Apple have in the smartphone market is so pronounced that, according to at least one analyst examining the top eight mobile companies, they account for 99% of profit made on smartphones. This works out to 73% of operating profit for Apple and 26% of operating profit for Samsung, with HTC accounting for the remaining 1%. According to results for the second quarter of 2012 released on Friday, mobile device sales have helped boost Samsung to a record profit of $5.9 billion dollars, with the mobile division accounting for nearly 70% percent of earnings. In comparison, the first three months of 2012 saw a profit of $11.6 billion for Apple, driven by $22.7 billion dollars in revenue from iPhone sales and an additional $6.6 billion in iPad revenue.

Click to enlarge

The importance of mobile profits to both companies’ bottom lines is fairly clear from the earnings data, and the ongoing legal battles may simply be about safeguarding those profits. But the combination of huge profits and extensive patent portfolios also has more sinister implications for competitors to Apple and Samsung in the mobile market. Both companies have ample capital to reinvest into technological innovation while their competitors struggle to stay afloat, and their patents could also provide a legal impediment to new challenges in the market.

But the litigious character of the battle for mobile supremacy between Apple and Samsung is increasingly earning them the ire of judges all over the globe. In June, Judge Richard Posner, presiding over a patent lawsuit between Apple and Google’s Motorola Mobility in California, scrapped the case and prevented both sides from refilling. Since then, he has appeared in the press as a staunch critic of patent infringement lawsuits and an advocate of patent reform. In Australia, Judge Annabelle Bennett has called the ongoing suits “ridiculous” and suggested that mediation should be the proper legal remedy. And in the United Kingdom, in perhaps the most embarrassing blow for Apple, Judge Colin Birss ordered that Apple must post a notice on their U.K. website for six months declaring that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad (albeit his ruling stated that Samsung’s tablets would not be confused with Apple’s products because they are “not as cool” as the iconic iPad).

Click to enlarge

The $2.5 billion lawsuit set to begin in California is certainly the largest case currently ongoing in the battle between Samsung and Apple, but ultimately it may prove to be a drop in the bucket in terms of money. Samsung and Apple are jockeying for position within advanced cell phone markets in developed nations, but this is only a prelude to the expansion of smartphones into developing markets such as Brazil, India, and the world’s largest cellphone market, China. The success of Apple and Samsung in dominating the smartphone market may be fleeting if up-and-coming rivals such as Chinese electronics manufacturers Huawei and ZTE, who are beginning to introduce capable smartphones at aggressive prices, can penetrate developing markets where consumer preferences may be influenced more by value than by brand loyalty or the “cool factor”. We shouldn’t forget that it was just over five years ago that Apple introduced the iPhone and upended popular notions about what a smartphone was.

The relative advantage that Apple and Samsung enjoy in terms of mobile device profits, as well as their sizable R&D operations and legal battles, may make it prohibitively expensive for others to enter the smartphone market, but it is not yet an insurmountable obstacle for other challengers. It may delay the emergence of a legitimate competitor for the two companies, but it is unlikely to stop other companies from trying to grab a piece of the multibillion dollar market they dominate. In the meantime, the questionable lawsuits and worldwide courtroom dramas will continue to define the terms of competition in the marketplace for years to come.