South Korea’s newly elected president has a populist streak, but is it a smart one?

Businessman-turned politician Lee Myung-bak sees a role for the government in economic affairs, even though he largely trusts in the market and global trade to reverse the country’s slowing economic growth.

Lee, for example, has called for building a major Korean waterway and promotes the creation of an “International Science and Business City” in Chungcheong province.

What’s more, Lee seems to take the idea of a social safety net seriously. His official Web site calls for a society that is “warm” and touts the idea of a “smart market economy,” meaning that “Competition, freedom and creativity should be protected but stragglers helped.”

The word “stragglers” may be more pejorative than Lee intends because of translation issues. But it does seem like he views those who struggle economically to be charity cases. For example, the site also states: “…Korean people call for new political leadership, which should be based on faith in success, respect of freedom and competition, and a forward-looking managerial capacity. It also should be able to help and guide the needy, the weak, and the handicapped.”

Losers in the global economy, however, aren’t always “weak.” The turbulent nature of today’s capitalism can topple otherwise competent companies and individuals quickly, and there’s little to anything they can do about it. Some countries, such as Denmark, are exploring policies that effectively take the stigma out of job loss and treat the social safety net—which can include retraining and wage insurance—as a force to keep an economy strong.

Will Lee’s “warm” version of welfare fall short of being the wisest variety?

Are American or European executives more enlightened when it comes to business and workforce management priorities?

A new study from AMR Research doesn’t tackle that question head-on, but it sheds some interesting light on the issue. At first blush, the findings back the notion that U.S. firms are more focused on short-term success compared with their European counterparts.

In particular, the research suggests American managers put a higher priority on profitability and revenue growth, while European business leaders stress increasing market share and getting innovative products to market.

AMR’s study focuses on spending on “human capital management” software. It surveyed a total of 304 business executives from the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. Among other questions, it asked about the top two business priorities associated with human capital management for the next year.

Fifty percent of U.S. respondents named “increased profitability” as their company’s first or second priority, making that the top overall choice. “Revenue growth” came in second, with 43 percent of U.S. managers listing it as their first or second priority.

In the U.K., though, “increased market share” was the top choice, slightly edging out revenue growth. In Germany, increased market share and increased profitability tied for the top spot. Getting innovative products to market was the first or second priority for 28 percent of U.K. respondents and 19 percent of German respondents but just 11 percent of U.S. managers.

To be sure, there are limits to drawing conclusions about U.S. and European business priorities from the AMR study. For one thing, it polled information technology executives, who rarely call the shots at companies. What’s more, the study examines just two European countries.

It’s also possible that the relatively low score for innovation in the United States reflects U.S. prowess in the realm: Perhaps American companies are good enough at pumping out new market-pleasers that they can focus on other goals. Conversely, perhaps European executives are so focused on market share and innovation because they’re trying to catch up with Americans in these fields.

What’s more, the European and American respondents to the study could be part of global organizations based in a different part of the world from where they work.

Still, the research raises some intriguing questions. Is the American focus on earnings efficiency wise in the long run? Could European business leaders be preparing their workforces more effectively for future success?

China’s new labor laws are a step forward. But the country has an economic security problem that rivals the unraveling of the safety net in the United States.

These are among the nuggets that can be gleaned from a new report on China’s future labor market and the impact of new labor laws from the Adecco Institute, a research body affiliated with Swiss-based HR services company Adecco Group.

The 42-page study notes labor challenges facing China, including skill shortages in middle and senior management. The dearth of quality managers in China, and the related dilemma of promoting people too quickly, was central to an extensive Workforce Management report earlier this year.

 The Adecco report also gives positive marks to a new set of labor laws either ratified or under discussion in China. These include China’s new contract labor law. A draft of that law initially alarmed business leaders, but the end result—due to take effect in January—has received a warm reception from a range of observers.

 “Our Adecco Institute perspective is that the final versions of the new laws—given the major shifts in wording during the drafting process—are surprisingly well balanced between protection and flexibility, are generally a good “outcome,” and are an interesting example of China’s increasing openness to look and learn from foreign best practices and then adapt these to China’s circumstances,” the report says.

One of China’s pending labor laws concerns social security. But progress on that measure has slowed, according to the report. And the lack of universal social security benefits to Chinese citizens is a major concern, the report implies. China’s workforce is aging fast. And the current economic safety net is skimpy for many. “Social insurance offers low levels of protection and anyway still only covers a very narrow range of people and excludes much of the rural population, migrants to the cities, and many employed in private enterprise in urban areas (though numbers are increasing),” the report says.

What’s more, the existing social insurance system “serves to restrict the free movement of labor,” the report says, because “people are reluctant to shift from a high level of coverage in public sector enterprises to the private sector.”

Adecco’s report, therefore, is yet another voice noting the importance to business of a smart system of economic security for workers. Debate over that subject has been brewing for the past few years in the United States, as globalization and diminishing employment benefits have shifted risk onto individuals. China, with its fast embrace of capitalism from socialism over the past three decades, has created great wealth but also a good amount of economic insecurity and, according to the Adecco report, the largest gap between rich and poor in Asia. All told, the average Chinese worker probably faces greater odds than his U.S. counterpart of taking a hard economic fall.

Will China end up providing an effective safety net for its workers before the U.S. does?