Development+of+South+Korea+-+Final+Paper-+Wynn (2)

1
Intertwining World Culturalist and Culturalist Perspectives:
Developing a Regional Educational Hub in South Korea
Name: Zhe Wang (Wynn)
Student Number: 250872858
Instructor: Marianne Larsen
Education 9203 – Globalization and Education
Due: April 1, 2016

2
Student mobility has become a significant part of a global migration phenomenon
that corresponds to the influence of globalization. Spring (2015) argues that the largest
international migration patterns are associated with people moving from poorer to
wealthier nations. Traditionally, the predominant destinations for international migrants
have been English-speaking and western European countries, such as the U.S., the U.K., and
Australia (Lee & Sehoole, 2015). However, the number of international students has
decreased in these destinations, which indicates that international students are more
interested in seeking out less-developed countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 2014). This is because countries that were formerly primarily source
countries have begun to reform their internalization policies to attract foreign students and
prevent further brain drain. For instance, as one of the top student sending countries, South
Korea is now working towards its ambition to become a regional education hub. In order to
achieve this, the government is passing many pro-education policies to attract foreign
students, such as the Brain Korea 21 Project, the World-Class University Project, and the
Study Korea 2020 Project, which aims to double the number of foreign students studying in
Korea by 2020. Statistics from OECD (2013) illustrate that 71% of international students
who study in Korea are from neighbouring countries. This implies that international
mobility is no longer following a linear pattern in which people move from the developing
countries to the developed countries. Instead, migration is becoming more and more
complex because of the emergence of new regional hubs.
How is South Korea developing itself as a regional educational hub? How is
globalization contributing to the development of South Korea as a regional educational hub?
I would argue that the development of South Korea as a regional education hub is a new

3
hybrid product of globalization that intertwines the world culturalist and culturalist
perspective to bring positive changes to South Korean education, and to give South Korea a
better position in the competitive global education market by developing a Student Hub in
the Asian-Pacific region.
To begin to address these questions, this paper will present a brief overview of
different perspectives on globalization, which provides an analytical framework to help
track the formation of South Korea as a regional educational hub. Next, to conceptualize
and categorize educational hubs, the paper outlines the three models of educational hubs,
which are Student, Talent, and Knowledge-Innovation hubs. The body of the paper focuses
on analyzing several important educational reform policies and outcomes in South Korea
from the world culturalist perspective, including the development of English as a medium
of instruction, and to attract more international students by becoming more competitive in
global rankings. The paper also discusses educational policy in terms of the culturalist
perspective. From this view, Korean educational policies involve recontextualization, which
locally modifies and creates new characteristics that benefit developing South Korea as a
regional educational hub. Furthermore, the paper addresses South Korean educational
policies and briefly examines which of the three types of educational hubs are developing
in Korea.
Different Perspectives on Globalization
Globalization is a complex process that inspires intense debate. For example, world
culturalist theorists and culturalist theorists hold opposing views when interpreting
globalization. World cultural theorists focus on the development of a uniform global
education culture that shares similar goals, education practices, and organizations (Spring,

4
2015). According to these theorists, the homogenization and standardization of educational
policies and practices in the world is a result of adopting the western model of education.
This view of globalization refers to a ‘neo-liberal’ kind of globalization that prefers to
deregulate and privatize state functions and to promote the value of competition (Rizvi &
Lingard, 2010). In contrast, culturalist theorists reject the growing uniformity of global
policies and goals, although they acknowledge that local agencies have the ability to
culturally translate ideas borrowed from the global flow of educational ideas and practices
(Spring, 2015). From the culturalist perspective, culture is a fluid and continually
transforming process that is shaped by the integration of economic, political, and social
changes (Baker & LeTendre, 2005). Therefore, globalization is never a convergence process,
and national states have strong positions in shaping policies.
What Are Educational Hubs?
The increasing flow of ideas, technology, capital, and people brings countries closer
to each other. This has led to the emergence of educational hubs as a new international
landscape of higher education that corresponds to the complexity of international student
mobility. An educational hub is “a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and
international actors strategically engaged in education, training, knowledge production and
innovation initiatives” (Knight, 2011, p. 227). In order to understand the concept of the
educational hub, it is necessary to deconstruct and analyze some key components within
this definition. “Planned effort” implies that the establishment of a hub requires an
intensive amount of time to organize, and that it is actively strategically designed. For
instance, some policy frameworks are a product of the “planned efforts” that reflect the
rationality and intentionality of building educational hubs. In addition, “critical mass”

5
recognizes the variety of actors that work together to contribute to the establishment of an
educational hub. In particular, a single-branch campus does not form an educational hub.
Next, “local and international actors” clarifies that both domestic and foreign players must
participate in an educational hub. Lastly, “strategically engaged” emphasizes that the
interactions among different actors involved in building educational hubs is complex, and
new values are added when different actors collaborate together (Knight, 2014).
There is no “one size fits all” model of educational hub, but educational hubs do
share some common characteristics and can be identified in three major types: The Student
Hub, The Talent Hub, and The Knowledge Hub. The Student Hub focuses on educating and
training local and international students, and the recruitment and attracting of foreign
higher education institutions has significant meaning for increasing access to all types of
students (Knight, 2011). The Talent Hub is similar to the Student Hub in that it emphasizes
students’ education and training. However, Talent Hubs train students to be skilled
laborers, and encourage foreign students to remain in host countries for employment,
which benefits the developing nation’s economy (Knight, 2011). Lastly, Knowledge Hubs
focus on production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. For example,
universities and research institutes may collaborate with some local agencies to establish a
base to create applied research and knowledge (Knight, 2014).
Development of South Korea as a Regional Educational Hub:
Policy Analysis from the World Culturalist Perspective
From the world culturalist perspective, ‘neo-liberal’ globalization promotes
competition, and standardization becomes a significant characteristic that influences
students’ choice of destinations. “Brain chain” can be a useful term in explaining the

6
pressure from which South Korea’s education system suffers. Countries that are at the
bottom of the chain are always net losers (Knight, 2014). South Korea needs to reform its
educational system to be more competitive in the standardized global ranking system.
Teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook are five areas of
indicators for The World University Ranking. All of the top ten universities are in English-
speaking countries, which reinforces the global role of using English (Spring, 2015). One of
the reasons is because the ranking system counts only international journal publications as
part of the citation category, and most of these journals require articles to be written in
English (Shin, 2013). In addition, American-dominated hegemony has made English
become a global communication language. Now the use of English for teaching can be an
important indicator for measuring university competitiveness, and also acts as a means to
attract international students (Shin & Kehm, 2013).
The Korean government now has the ambitious goal to establish the country as a
regional educational hub. As a result, the government is making an effort to adopt the
westernized model of education, to put emphasis on using English as the language of
instruction, and to become a region with world-class universities. Strengthening South
Korean higher education is an important requirement for developing an educational hub.
The Brain Korea 21 Project, Study Korea Project, and The World-Class Universities (WCUs)
in Korea are three important policies that are influenced by the westernized model of
education, and which will help strengthen certain aspects of South Korean higher education.
One of the areas needed for establishing a regional hub is increased productivity
and quality of research. The Brain Korea 21 Project was established in 1999, with a
primary focus to enhance the quality of research and strengthen graduate programs to

7
make Korea University globally competitive (Seong, Popper, Goldman, Evans & Grammich,
2008). Specifically, one objective was to establish 10 research-oriented universities by the
year 2012, and leap into the world’s top 10 nations in the Science Citation Index (SCI) after
2012 (Byun, Jon & Kim, 2013). The citation index is an important performance indicator
that counts for 30% of the World University Ranking (Spring, 2015). Korea’s government
believes that professors must gain international recognition of their research in order for
Korean universities to compete on an international level (Cho & Palmer, 2012). Given its
ambitious goals, South Korea is clearly in favour of the World University Ranking system
and recognizes the value of the westernized university ranking system. As a result, the
Brain Korea 21 Project has had tremendous direct influence on increasing publications in
international journals. For instance, articles published by Koreans in the Science Citation
Index increased from 9854 in 1999 to 25,494 in 2007(Kim, 2008).
The rationality for increasing Korean universities’ reputations and paying attention
to the global ranking is another important strength for developing South Korea as a
regional educational hub. As a global ranking system emerged, the establishment of World
Class Universities (WCU) became a hot issue that has had a huge impact on many nations’
educational policies as they try to reform universities to align with the WCU standard. In
South Korea, the World Class University Project was launched in 2008; it aims to import
foreign scholars to improve Korean universities’ teaching and research quality, and to
provide Korean students with the latest information to help them leap to an advantaged
position in the uniform international knowledge network (Byun & Kim, 2011). The process
of building a world-class research university reflects Korea’s ambition to establish a hub of
knowledge production in this competitive sector. The second step to building a World Class

8
University involves attracting talented Korean PHD students and training them as
competitive scholars in the world market (Shin & Jang, 2013). Similar to the Brain Korea 21
Project, the World Class University Project further promotes and attracts well-known
western scholars to increase research productivity and uses the westernized model of
education to train local Korea students. Again, this aim implies that the western model of
education has a higher position in the global education hierarchy, and that the Korean
education system has less power and needs to adopt the western model to survive.
Expanding the use of English as the language of instruction is an important part of
developing South Korea as a regional education hub. The Study Korea Project encourages
the use of English, which has reformed the structure of Korean higher education and
increased the enrolment of international students to study in South Korea. In addition to
boosting English course offerings, the Study Korea Project established English tracks in
strategic departments (Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). Korean undergraduate students
are now also required to take five courses in English to fulfill graduation requirements, and
the government increased the ratio of classes taught in English up to 50% by 2010 (Jon &
Kim, 2011). In addition, several of Korea’s top private universities, such as Yonsei
University and Ewha Woman’s University, have established all English four-year liberal
institutions to attract international students (Byun & Kim, 2011). Moreover, the increasing
importance of English as the language of instruction has brought about many changes in
evaluating Korea University professors’ performance. For instance, a professor’s ability to
conduct classes entirely in English and to publish English-language articles in international
journals has become important criteria for reemployment and tenure (Byun & Kim, 2011).
Furthermore, the majority of universities in Korea have set rules that newly hired

9
professors must teach at least some courses in English (Byun & Kim, 2011). Lastly, using
English as the language of instruction brings curriculum materials at a “world-class” level
(Jon & Kim, 2011). As a result, students feel satisfied because the international dimension is
introduced into classrooms and they can learn the most advanced materials. Overall, using
English as the language of instruction in Korea is a core strategy that is closely related to
the World Class University project and the Brain Korea 21 project, and shares the same
philosophy of adopting westernized model of education. “Englishization,” or recognizing
English as a global language, has made Korea University become a standardized world
university.
Development of South Korea as a Regional Educational Hub:
Policy Analysis from the Culturalist Perspective
It is clear that the westernized model of education has become an important
component in developing South Korea as a regional educational hub. However, from a
culturalist point of view, the country’s educational policies have also integrated some
unique Korean characteristics through recontextualization to develop South Korea as a
regional educational hub.
The Korean government’s involvement acts as a central agency in implementing
supporting policies to push the development of a regional educational hub in South Korea.
The Korean national state has a strong position and has provided enormous amounts of
funding for the Brain Korea 21 Project, World Class University Project, and the Study Korea
Project. The government gave US $3.5 billion to the Brain Korea 21 Project’s Phase 1 and
Phase 2 from 1999 to 2012, and plans to invest a total of US $750 million in the WCU
project in the first six years (Kang, 2015). According to the Study Korea 2020 Project
(2013), Korea’s government also supports expanding the Global Korea Scholarship

10
program by providing up to US $100 million annually by 2015. Korea’s educational policies
are government-sponsored projects, which highlights that governmental regulations
provide strong support for developing South Korea as a regional educational hub.
South Korea has also recontextualized and created localized supporting policies for
attracting international students. The Study Korea 2020 Project set a target of attracting
200,000 foreign students by 2020 (Green, 2015). In order to attract them, Study Korea
2020 highlights the implementation of customized international student recruitment
(Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). Firstly, the Korean government has set up affordable
low-cost, better services for students who want to study in Korea. In South Korea, domestic
students and international students pay the same tuition fees (OECD, 2015). Incoming
international students live in new dormitories that serve only international students (Jon &
Kim, 2011). In addition, the Korean government tries to recruit international students from
“strategic countries,” such as India, Vietnam, and Mongolia, to encourage these students to
stay and complete engineering graduate school (Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). These
countries have a strong passion for studying engineering and are geographically located
close to South Korea. For some colleges that specialize in engineering, university policies
are trying to ease Korean language requirements for engineering programs, and to support
job placement to overseas companies after graduation (Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013).
The Korean government also accurately analyzes its own marketing trends, and advertises
and promotes specialized engineering programs to attract international students from
these strategic countries. Moreover, according to the Study Korea 2020 Project 2020
(2013), one of the program’s main strategies is expanding its internalization base through
reinforcing Korean language education in and outside of Korea. In 2001, 83% of

11
international students enrolled in undergraduate programs in Korea were from China
(Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). The majority of Chinese students do not favour English
as a medium of instruction (Green, 2015). However, many Chinese students are instead
infatuated with Korean culture, and are eager to learn the Korean language (SBS, 2001).
Korean culture and the Korean language might be an important reason for Chinese
international students to choose to study in Korea. As a result, Korean universities have
strengthened and expanded the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) and have made some
strategic expansions of bilingual classes (Study Korea Project 2020, 2013). Through
emphasizing Korean culture and language, Korean universities have branded themselves to
be part of a standout regional educational hub.
After analyzing Korea’s higher-education policies from the world culturalist
perspective and the culturalist perspective, it is clear that both approaches are working
together to make South Korea into a regional educational hub that is a new hybrid product
of globalization. On the one hand, world culturalist theory puts emphasis on the
homogenizing nature of globalizing forces that compel Korea to compete in the global
ranking systems and to expand the use of English as a global language to construct South
Korea’s education as highly internationalized. On the other hand, culturalist theorists draw
people’s attention to the heterogeneity of westernized education, and discuss South
Korea’s recontextualized policies for attracting foreign students through reforming
engineer programs and branding Korean culture and language. In the case of South Korea,
world culturalist theory and culturalist theory are bound together to develop South Korea
as a regional educational hub, and both approaches have undeniable power in shaping
South Korea’s higher educational policy.

12
Typology of the Education Hub in South Korea
Following the discussion above, it is clear that the Korean government is
subjectively making an effort to develop a regional educational hub. However, the
educational demands in the Asia-Pacific region are also a necessary consideration for
developing Korea as a regional educational hub. In 2011, close to half of the world’s
students studying abroad around the world came from Asia, with China, India, and South
Korea being the top three sending countries (Banks & Bhandari, 2012). This implies that
Asian students have a strong desire to pursue higher education outside of their own
countries, and that there is a huge market for education in the Asian region. In addition, the
massive growth of middle class families in Asia will drive the demand for tertiary education
in the future (Kharas, 2010). The development of personal wealth in Asia allows more
students to afford to study abroad, which ensures the stability of the educational market in
the Asia-Pacific region. South Korea is located in East Asia and is geographically close to
many countries, including China, Japan, Vietnam, and Mongolia, meaning Korea has the
potential to serve many Asian students who wish to study abroad.
As mentioned earlier, there is no “one size fits all” model of educational hub, and
there may be different rationales for developing a regional educational hub. Some countries
want to build a hub in order to distribute knowledge and innovation through foreign
investment, and to develop collaboration among key players to increase their international
economic or cultural influence. Other countries perceive a hub as a means to build a critical
mass of foreign students to enhance profit, to brand the country’s higher education, and to
benefit local students’ access to international education (Knight, 2013). Therefore, what is

13
the rationale behind South Korea developing its hub, and what are the hub’s unique
characteristics?
Given Korea’s three main wide-ranging educational policies, the Study Korea Project,
Brain Korea 21 Project, and World Class University Project, it seems that Korea’s
government aims to develop South Korea simultaneously as a regional Student Hub, Talent
Hub, and Knowledge and Innovation Hub in the long run. However, I would argue that
Korea’s main rationale for developing a hub is to create a Student Hub, because these
policies are too wide-ranging and evaluate whether or not it seems possible to develop all 3
over time. All of the country’s policies prioritize objectives for recruitment and education
for students. Knight (2013) argues that some objectives for developing student hubs
include providing wider access to higher education for local students, gaining profit from
international student fees, building capacity for local higher education, and
internationalizing domestic higher education to enhance ranking and branding among the
world’s universities.
In the case of South Korea, the Study Korea Project 2020 aims to establish a number
of international education environments in free economic and international education
zones, including the development of Incheon Global Campus (IGC) AND Jeju Global
Education City (JGEC). IGC is located in the Incheon Free Economic Zone one hour west of
Seoul. George Mason University, Ghent University, the State University of New York and the
University of Utah are currently members of the IGC. Six more international universities
are expected to join in the future (IGC Foundation, 2015). IGC serves as an umbrella
organization that contains all of these branch campuses, and helps facilitate collaboration
among all participating universities (Jin, 2015). As a result, students have more flexibility in

14
course selection because of some shared courses among participating universities.
Moreover, JGEC is located in the southwest region of Jeju, which aims to be the excellent
destination for both domestic and international students who wish to experience English
learning through K-12 and postsecondary education (Dou & Knight, 2014). The JGEC’s
ambitious plan clarifies that the university zone was modeled after the Dubai Knowledge
Village. JGEC plans to allow foreign education providers to rent lecture spaces, while
students will share residences, libraries, community halls, and other facilities (Dou &
Knight, 2014).
Both IGC and JGEC are unique ways of gathering international branch
campuses in one specific location. They also possess a brand focused on collaboration,
which aims to attract both domestic and international students. The development of these
international education zones indicates Korea’s strong will to position itself as a Student
Hub in Northeast Asia. However, based on its education policies, the Korean government
seems to be less concerned with developing a Talent Hub or a Knowledge Hub. In addition,
the country still has a long way to go because of the lack of a national plan to support the
sustainability of developing South Korea as a regional hub. The education sector may not
be the most significant sector in the development of a Talent Hub, and the immigration
sectors have more important influences on the development of a Talent Hub (Knight & Lee,
2014). In terms of the Knowledge Hub, “independent institutes, research and development
firms, and science and technology companies” are all important players in collaboratively
creating knowledge (Knight & Lee, 2014, p. 34).
The development of South Korea as a regional educational hub is a complex process
in practice that involves strong collaborations among different local and international

15
agencies. South Korea is at the beginning of the process of developing a regional hub in
Northeast Asian.
Conclusion
Through examining Korean higher educational policies, this paper provides a
comprehensive analysis of the complex process of developing South Korea as a regional
educational hub in Northeast Asia. I argue that both the world culturalist perspective and
the culturalist perspective are evident in how South Korea is shaping its higher educational
policy to support the country to be successful in developing and maintaining a regional
educational hub. On the one hand, the world culturalist perspective highlights the
importance of standardization and homogenization to the Korean model of education,
which intends to follow the latest trends of the western educational model. On the other
hand, the culturalist perspective puts emphasizes on recontextualization to further brand
some unique characteristics of Korean higher education, to create possibilities in
developing a regional educational hub. In addition, the theoretical framework of the three
types of educational hubs provides another lens to understanding the development of
South Korea as a regional educational hub. Although all three Korea education policies
want to expand in all 3 directions (Talent Hub, Student Hub, Knowledge Hub), but that
currently it’s actually focusing all of it’s funding on developing a student hub. This implies
that the government needs to clean up its policies and focus on 1 thing at a time in order to
succeed , or acknowledge that it has a very long way to go to make all 3 types of hubs
happen.

16
References
Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). “The Global Environment of National School
Systems” in National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of
Schooling. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.
Banks, M., & Bhandari, R. (2012). Global student mobility. In D.K. Deardorff et al. (Eds.). The
SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. (p. 379-397). SAGE Publications.
Byun, K., & Kim, M. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the
internationalization of Korea higher education. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 15(5), 467-486.
Cho, Y. H., & Palmer, J. D.(2012). Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s higher education
internationalization policy. Higher Education, 65(3), 291-308.
Dou, L., & Knight, J. (2014). Emerging hubs: South Korea, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and Bahrain.
In J. Knight (Eds.) International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge-
Innovation Models (p. 165-182). Dordrecht: Springer.
Green, C. (2015). Internationalization, deregulation and the expansion of higher education
in Korea: An historical overview. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3), 1-
13.
IGC Foundation. (2015). Incheon Global Campus Foundation. Retrieved from http://
www.igc.or.kr/en/intro/about.do
Jin, J. C. (2015). Internalization, deregulation and the extension of higher education in
Korea: A further note. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3), 156-160.
Jon, J.-E., & Kim, E.-Y.(2011). What it takes to internationalize higher education in Korea
and Japan: English –mediated courses and international students. In J.D. Palmer et al.
(Eds.). The Internationalization of East Asian Higher Education: Globalization’s
Impact. (p. 147-171). Palgrave Macmillan US.

17
Jon, J.-E., Lee, J. J., & Byun K. (2014). The emergence of a regional hub: Comparing
international student choices and experiences in South Korea. Higher Education,
67(5), 691-710.
Kang, J. S. (2015). Initiatives for change in Korea higher education: Quest for excellence of
World-Class Universities. International Education Studies,8(7), 169-180.
Kharas, H. (2010). The emerging middle class in developing countries. Paris, France: OECD.
Kim, Y. C. (2008). Understanding Korean Educational Policy: Universalization of tertiary
education. Korea Educational Development Institute, 1-102.
Knight, J. (2011). Three types of education hubs: Student, talent and knowledge. Are
indicators useful or feasible? The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 1-29.
Knight, J. (2013). Education hubs: international, regional and local dimensions of scale and
scope. Comparative Education, 49(3), 374-387.
Knight, J. (2014). International education hubs: Collaboration for competitiveness and
sustainability. In B. Barefoot & J. L. Kinzie (Eds.) In New Directions for Higher
Education (p. 83-96). San Francisco, California: Willey.
Knight, J., & Lee, J. (2014). An analytical framework for education hubs. In J. Knight (Eds.)
International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge-Innovation Models (p. 29-
42). Dordrecht:Springer.
Lee, J. J., & Sehoole, C. (2015). Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging
economy: the case of South Africa. Higher Education, 70(5), 827-843.
Minister of Education (2013). Study Korea Project 2020.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Education at a
glance. Paris, France.
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, R. (2010). Perspectives on Globalization (pp. 22-43). In Globalizing
Educational Policy. Routledge: Milton Park, Abingdon
Seong, S., Popper, S. W., Goldman, C. A., Evans, D. K., & Grammich, W. C. (2008). Brain Korea
21 phase II: A new evolution model. Rand Education, 1-243.
Seoul Broadcasting System (SBS). (2001). Special report on ‘Korean pop culture fever that
sweep Asia’, broadcast as a segment in ‘I Want to Know That’, 21 July.
Shin, J. C. (2013). The World-Class University: Concept and policy initiatives. In J. C. Shin &
B. M. Kehm (Eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition.
(p.17-32). Spring Dordercht Heidelberg London New York.
Shin, J. C., & Jang, Y. S. (2013). World-Class University in Korea: Proactive government,
responsive university, and procrastinating academics. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm

18
(Eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. (p.147-
163). Spring Dordercht Heidelberg London New York.
Shin, J. C., & Kehm, B. M. (2013). The World-Class University in different systems and
contexts. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class
University in Global Competition. (p.1-16). Spring Dordercht Heidelberg London New
York.
Spring, J. (2015). Global of Education. In Globalization of Education: An Introduction (p. 1-
31). New York, NY: Routledge.
Spring, J. (2015). The world trade organization and the global culture of higher education.
In Globalization of Education: An Introduction (p. 93-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Spring, J. (2015). A global workforce: Migration and the talent auction. In Globalization of
Education: An Introduction (p. 188-211). New York, NY: Routledge.

Development+of+South+Korea+-+Final+Paper-+Wynn (2)

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Development+of+South+Korea+-+Final+Paper-+Wynn (2)

Development+of+South+Korea+-+Final+Paper-+Wynn (2)