Ae-Kyung Kim’s scientific contributions

The purpose of this study was to analyze China’s discourses on the causes of crisis, subsequent response and the role of China in responding processes of 2008 global financial crisis departed from the U.S. The wavelength of the global finance crisis in 2008 different from the finance crisis occurring in East Asia in mid and late 1990s was so huge that it has been recognized as a matter in a global dimension. Also since China’s global status of is increased as compared with that of mid and late 1990s, how China defines their role has a significant implication upon the future world orders in the process of settling the finance crisis. In the meantime, the U.S. has argued that the political and economic models that drove forward are universal development models that all the countries in the world should follow, but it can be said that since year 2008 financial crisis started in the U.S., it has become a chance to pose radical problems for the U.S. type of new liberalistic development models and the U.S. centered capitalism world system. Discourses on the causes of finance crisis in 2008 starting from U.S. have been made in various dimensions. Chinese Leadership was discreet in responding the causes of the outbreak of financial crisis started from the U.S. Additionally, they addressed that the causes of the spread of finance crisis were U.S. centered single monetary system, new liberalism policy originated from U.S., and discrepancies of capitalistic economy. On the other side, Chinese scholars’ diagnoses were relatively somewhat critical and they defined the causes of financial crisis occurrence belonged to the U.S. failure of coordinating their internal economic policies. As finance risk in 2008 arose in U.S., the center of capitalistic system and spread to all over the world, there have been fundamental critics and self-reflections that we should consider it as structural risk of U.S. centered capitalism and new liberalism model. At the same time, discourses were led to search for alternatives to U.S. centered capitalism and new liberalism model and re-interpretation of socialism. However, even Chinese scholars did not address that Chinese development model should be the alternative in post finance crisis or socialism should replace capitalism. What they emphasized was the necessity to reflect new liberalism model and capitalism and they concluded that more Chinese characteristics should be reflected on the Chinese style development model. They are signs of China’s expansion of influence in physical aspects including market size, finance sector, and currency structure, etc. in the global economic system, and at the same time, their expansion of influence in non-physical aspects such as regulations and notions increased by the demand of global rights, which may affect existing interests through new adjustment of the world order. The U.S. centered single currency system and neoliberalpolicies originated from the U.S were stipulated as causes of spreading the financial crisis, and these critical discussions showed the intention that China would raise their voice in relation with local and global dimension governance framework. Debates in academic world on the role of China after the finance crisis are still cautions. Most of discussions on countermeasures are focused on the methods to minimize influences that finance crisis could bring to domestic economy in China. They agreed that they China would approach to global governance gradually and somewhat passively at post crisis. Changes in international status of China require more international rights and responsibilities. At the same time, they remember that the status upgrade of China is resulted from their continuous development.