Two years following the 1997-98 Korean financial crisis, the Korean government attempted to bolster consumer spending and re-invigorate the national economy by pursuing a series of policies that directly promoted the use of consumer credit cards. Subsequently, consumer credit card spiked upward, which led to a dramatic surge in individual debtor defaults. The government in response mode again thereafter initiated a three-pronged legislative effort to counter the post-1997 individual debtor polemic: (i) the Individual Debtor Rehabilitation Act (“IDRA” or the “Act”); (ii)) the Korea Asset Management Company’s Bad Bank (KAMCO or “Bad Bank”); and (iii) the Credit Counseling and Recovery Service (CCRS) (collectively, the “Legal Acts”). This paper surveys and analyzes the Legal Acts approach to resolving South Korea’s post-1997 consumer credit card spending polemic.
This paper aims to answer two research questions: First, what are the sources of weaknesses found in current CSO-government relationships? Second, how could these weaknesses be remedied to bring better efficiency in social development assistance programs? Applying the Complexity Science framework and Brinkerhoff’s related theoretical model to the field of social finance for the first time to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this article argues that the implementation of social finance, generally, and social impact bonds (SIBs), specifically, can combine to create “smart social capital”—a new model in which trust is furthered and arguably maximized between relevant public and/or private sector networks in the form of stakeholders, through the efficient combination of shared interests in the form of financial as well as societal beneficial gains by related stakeholders and the community at large.
In our increasingly globalized and cross-border world, negotiators come across increasingly different cultures, and thus, methods of approaching solutions and problems. Often such cultures may seem "alien" or "unusual" to us, which may in turn give rise to certain partisan perceptions. Within the context of East-West negotiations, I suggest that such partisan perception may further be linked to cultural variables and described as a "barbarian bias," which represents a significant variable that has not been fully discussed in the current literature. This is linked to other phenomenon, such as "accidental Occidentalism" and "biased benchmarking," which can be used, knowingly or unknowingly, by both individual and collective-based negotiators to their possible detriment.
What factors fuelled the South Korean property boom since 2002, and whar (if anything) can be done to prevent a U.S.-style subprime crisis in the local real estate markers? This issue has grown even more urgent given observations of a potential bubble and burst scenario following the U.S. sub-prime crisis. This paper aims to bring together these concerns, from an interdisciplinary regulatory, economic and socio-cultural per-spective, by (1) providing a comprehensive and current overview of housing market dynamics in Korea, (2) examining South Korea's real estate regulatory policies since 2002 with-statistical evidence from the Bank of Korea (BOK), and (3) providinga brief policy implication and suggestion sectionre-garding the Korean housing marker conditions in the post-subprime crisis era.
Funding for animal shelters is often a scarce resource, representing a major challenge affecting many shelter programs in the United States and beyond today. Funding issues and budgetary constraints are often exacerbated by the high rate of animal intake levels relative to adoption rates, the availability of resources to treat medical conditions, and funding for other related programs that may lower euthanasia rates, such as spay and neuter programs. This article proposes an alternative funding option for animal shelter programs using a unique social finance funding model incorporating public-private partnerships and social impact bonds. This social finance model is directly aimed at providing greater funding for animal shelter programs, while also increasing transparency and social impact outcomes. If utilized, the social impact bond model can complement and build upon (but not completely replace) existing funding sources that are critical to saving nonhuman animal lives while benefiting society at large.