6. State and Labor: Modes of Political Exclusion in East Asian Development

The political economy of education and skills in South Korea: democratisation, liberalisation and education reform in comparative perspective

“…defacto lifetime employment for core workforces) and corporate social welfare allowed residual social policy without much unrest during the period of fast industrialisation. Whilst imposing here some considerable costs on employers, the authoritarian state, repressing organised labour, also enforced wage constraint in order not to jeopardise the competitiveness of Korean industry in world markets (Deyo 1987). Democratisation and globalisation successively undermined this compromise between the state and employers.…”

“…Pempel 1998 and Rosenbluth and Thies 2010 on Japan's political economy). In the authoritarian state of Korea, trade unions were repressed to ensure low-cost and disciplined labour and to prevent the rise of the political left, as open dissent from employers was not tolerated by the Park Chung-Hee government either (Deyo 1987;Jones and Sakong 1980).…”

Organised Labour, Dualisation and Labour Market Reform: Korean Trade Union Strategies in Economic and Social Crisis

“…Importantly, fragmented enterprise unions, often collaborating with employers, were thought to prevent the emergence of a class conscious amongst workers, which could have challenged the authoritarian government. Needless to say that unions were not allowed to engage in any political action (Deyo 1987;Koo 2001;Kwon and O'Donnell 1999). In other words, the promoted business unionism restricted to narrow workplace issues was a means of regime stabilisation, in addition to providing the institutional underpinnings for insiderfocussed strategies in the aftermath of democratisation, as discussed in the following section.…”

Variedades Y Variaciones De Capitalismo en La Periferia. América Latina Y El Este Asiático Reconsiderados

“…A esa debilidad, se sumaron los procesos de reforma agraria señalados por Kay (2002), pretéritos a la industrialización y funcionales a la ocupación de posguerra, los que, junto a sus efectos redistributivos y sumados a la escasez de recursos naturales, impidieron la consolidación de actores capitalistas concentrados y rentistas con capacidad de bloqueo a las iniciativas estatales y su acción disciplinadora, aspectos indicados en Castells (1992), Pempel (1999), Kay (2002) y Davis (2004). Finalmente, a ello se sumó lo planteado por Deyo (1987) y Castells (1992), referido a la fragilidad organizativa y subalterna de la fuerza de trabajo que no tuvo posibilidad alguna de ejercer presiones para mejorar sus condiciones laborales.…”