
2011년 6월, 성장둔화와 유동성축소
Reinforcing myself with stabilty, keep designing material growth on the cultivated virtue.
The Asian Financial Crisis Goes West By PHILIP BOWRING(April 29, 2010) HONG KONG
— The Greek-led debt crisis in Europe is looking ominously similar to the East Asian crisis of 1997-1998, but the comparison also points to how it may eventually be resolved.
Sure, there are differences: The European crisis concerns developed countries while the Asian one devastated nations at varying levels of development — Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia in particular. In the Asian case, the debts were largely in the private sector. In Europe, public debts are the focus.
But key similarities remain. First, afflicted Asian countries were borrowing in foreign currency. Europeans argue that their case is different because most of the debt is in their own currency, the euro. But in practice, the euro is the currency of the rich, northern core of Europe led by Germany. Countries on the periphery joined for prestige and the benefits of low interest rates. Similarly in Asia, countries effectively pegged their currencies to the dollar, with the result that foreign banks came to see little risk in lending dollars to finance local assets.
The second similarity follows from the first. In Asia, so long as it was easy to borrow, no one bothered about whether the exchange rate was appropriate. Many Asian countries’ external deficits ballooned and local inflation rose, but countries like Japan, with surplus savings, kept lending.
In Europe, the influx of capital into fringe countries following the adoption of the euro raised growth rates, but also pushed up wages faster than productivity. These countries thus now find themselves in a crisis that, as in Asia, has two parts: debt and inappropriate exchange rates.
In Asia, exchange rates collapsed under the pressure of the market. That may not happen in Europe — but only if the core countries pay the price.
That price is rising because of the third similarity: contagion. The Asian collapses did not happen simultaneously. Six months separated the first — Thailand — from the Korean and Indonesian crises. Following Greece, conditions have tightened sharply for Portugal; Ireland’s austerity efforts may prove insufficient; and question marks are hovering over Spain.
In Asia, debts were mostly short-term bank loans, so the crisis hit fast. In Europe, the central issue is the rollover of medium-term bonds. so there is more time to address the problem — but also more time for the disease to spread.아시아에서,
When the Asian crisis was eventually resolved, foreign banks had to absorb huge losses. That was relatively easy for Asia because the debts were mostly owed by bankrupt private-sector companies. Europe has a bigger problem because the debt is mostly public.
But debt write-offs will eventually be part of the solution, given that the politics in democratic Europe make it unlikely that austerity can be sustained for long. The Asian crisis induced radical political change that Europe will avoid.
Then the issue will become whether debt reduction is achieved by a moratorium on the debt, or by afflicted countries leaving the euro. In the Asian case, devaluation, produced deep but short recession. Currencies stabilized at lower levels and restored competitiveness, enabling them to run trade surpluses.
Europe’s problems are bigger. The write-offs that Japanese and Western banks had to make on their Asian loans did not imperil them; European banks are still convalescing from the global financial crisis and are in a poor position to write off more billions. Europe’s trade is mostly with itself, while Asia’s was with a wider world, so export-led recovery will be more difficult.
Nonetheless, Europe and the I.M.F. would do well to remember from the Asian crisis that years of fundamental imbalances cannot be massaged out of existence. Knots must be cut.
A growing number of Korean students studying in the United States are returning home to attend domestic colleges and universities.
Many "returnees" say they come back because of their failure to fully prepare for their new surroundings, including U.S. schools' academic programs.
They add that there are a lot more on the "waiting lists," biding their time before returning home. However, these days they are having a hard time getting back into the Korean school system.
This news comes at a time when a greater number of students are heading for U.S. schools with some of them being accepted thanks to falsified documents created by paid consultants.
The number of transfer applicants from overseas universities at Dongguk University in Seoul was 25 in 2006 and 30 in 2007, but the figure has more than doubled this year to 72.
One of the hopefuls said "I had a hard time to adapt to school life (in the U.S.) after I finished my army service and it was very stressful."
Konkuk University has also seen a steady rise in transfer numbers. This year, the school had more than 100 applicants from those who quit studying abroad, up from 72 in 2008, 50 in 2007 and 45 in 2006.
Korea University had a total of 174 applicants, but only 16 students gained admission. The same trend was found at Yonsei University - 170 overseas transfer applicants in 2010 compared to 156 last year.
A student, a Hur, who studied at Ohio State University, said there were a huge number of Korean students trying to transfer to universities in their homeland, as she did. Another student, Kwon, who was at Michigan State, said she decided to come back to Korea due to financial difficulties.
"I spent $60,000 on yearly tuition and living costs there."
"I witnessed a lot of Korean students having difficulties in studying there as it is much easier to gain academic credits in Korea," she added.
Cho, who transferred from Pennsylvania State University to Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul, also said he saw many Korean friends who were forced to return to Korea due to their poor academic achievements.
Sungkyunkwan admitted 38 returning students out of a total of 528 applicants, while Ewha Womans University accepted nine out of 307.
Another transfer student, Min, said "Korean employers prefer graduates from domestic universities to those from overseas schools, although my previous school is well-known there."
According to a paper in 2008 by Samuel S. Kim at Columbia University, 56 percent of Korean students at prestigious American universities gained degrees, while the rest gave up their studies halfway through.
The dropout rate was much higher than the 34 percent for American, 25 percent for Chinese and 21 percent for Indian students.
Kim tracked 1,400 Korean students at 14 top American universities between 1985 and 2007 for the paper.
A counselor from a foreign school here said "Korean parents tend to push ahead with their children to gain admission at top American schools but this is not necessarily good for them."
"The best university is where their children can land well and gain academic accomplishments," he added.
"A lot of Korean students who chose overseas schools based on their reputation fail. Korean media need to report more on this dark side of studying abroad," said Kim Hyun-jin, an education professor at Kookmin University in Seoul.