| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
136584
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Korean government is emphasizing the role of the defense industry in a bid to connect it more firmly with the country’s economy as a whole. Following the previous government’s policy of developing the defense industry into a new economic
growth engine, the current government is seeking to create innovative defense R&D basis and boost new business in the defense industry as one of the key agendas in the defense acquisition program administration. The key of this policy is how to improve the defense R&D system and industrial base through “Openness and Competition,” which is contrasted to the past policy strongly based on protectionism. In order to realize this, the Korean government is endeavoring to move toward leading future development. This change of focus will require a comprehensive understanding on business environment and performance of the defense industry. The reality faced by defense companies should also be considered from a more objective perspective. In this context, this paper examines the overall management of Korean defense companies and evaluates the policy implications that can be identified in this regard. The main contents of this paper include an overview of supply base of the defense industry, an outline of the trends and structural characteristics of defense revenues, and analyses of overall management status associated with financial matters; number of workers employed; amount of investments; domestic supply of defense items production; and defense exports. Furthermore, by comparing the changing trends of business indicators, points worth considering in the establishment of the future direction of defense policy have been put forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134728
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In its current configuration, the literature on securitisation – the process of integrating an issue into a security framework that emphasises policing and defence – relies mainly on two logics: the logic of exception and the logic of routine. For some scholars, these two approaches to the study of securitisation frame a battleground on which a conflict among various structural, critical, cultural and sociological standpoints is waged. Although many graduate students cut their theoretical teeth on these debates, little has been gained thus far in the battle for possession of the field. By questioning the literature’s underlying understanding of these two logics as opposing and competing, I pursue two aims in this article. First, I seek to bolster current research on the securitisation process by moving the conversation away from its current analytical stalemate. I caution scholars against overdrawing distinctions between the two logics, for it is not clear that they are mutually exclusive. Second, I seek to recognise and harness the strengths of both logics, and to identify the fruitful theoretical ‘bricks’ each framework contributes to our understanding of securitisation. I illustrate the preceding set of arguments through an analysis of the social construction of migration as a security threat in France since the end of the Cold War
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134261
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This introductory essay raises a range of issues that have emerged as studies of South Asia culture, society and history have taken a ‘visual turn’. This special of South Asia deliberately juxtaposes articles that would not ordinarily be read together, as they treat art history, history, anthropology and literary studies to underscore their shared interest in visual evidence produced at moments of crucial change. In the process, we hope to expand both the larger scholarly community's understanding of ‘visual culture’ and the potential for analysts of South Asia to trace interconnections and influences on the changing subcontinent through its very specific, if widely deployed, visual culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|