The new Korean political economy: beyond the models of capitalism debate

Abstract

A key theme within the literature on the evolution of the Korean political economy since the 1997/8 crisis has been the extent to which Korea remains a 'developmental state' or has pursued radical neoliberal reform. These debates have not only reflected a concern with understanding the Korean economy but with a wider set of questions relating to the future of capitalist diversity within a globalized economy. By the late 1980s Korea had come to be regarded as a model of successful state-led late capitalist development. Korean modern economic history has insured that questions relating to the extent that it has pursued neoliberal reform have been of keen interest to students of political economy globally. This paper argues that substantive neoliberal reform has taken place in Korea since 1997. The thesis that a new 'developmental state' is in process of consolidating itself is simply wrong. However, the state's reform program interacted with material conditions and political coalitions at the meso level in a complex and uneven manner. In certain critical sectors, such as finance, a neoliberal regulatory regime has been consolidated. In others, such as telecommunications, developmentalist regulatory structures have proven to be highly resilient. In order to fully understand the complexity of the contemporary Korean political economy it is necessary, therefore, to prioritize the importance of meso-level analysis.

Tethered to Sanctions to the Nth Degree: The Rise and Fall of South Korea in Iran

“…During the 1960s and 1970s, high-profile officials, including top cabinet ministers and key parliamentarian figures, exchanged several visits and signed dozens of major bilateral agreements. Still, no official meeting occurred between the Shah of Iran and Park Chung-hee, the South Korean leader, who ruled South Korea from early 1960s until late 1970s [Park came to power through a military coup in May 1961 and ruled the country until was assassinated in October 1979] and oversaw its breakneck industrialization and economic development programs (Pirie, 2012).…”

‘Backward’ industrialisation in resource-rich countries: The car industry in Uzbekistan

“…Therefore, these Asian countries have mediated these dynamics with specific policies that guaranteed the reproduction of a relatively cheap and highly disciplined working class as the key ‘factor endowment’ for their participation in the IDL (Iñigo Carrera, 2013). In South Korea, for instance, state repression of labour unions as well as labour market reforms to control wage growth, limit welfare and guarantee ease of hiring and firing, along with the emphasis on workers’ discipline and collaborative habits in school curricula, have been crucial to reproduce a relatively cheap and pliant labour force for large-scale industrial production for the world market since the 1960s, whether during the ‘developmental state’ or the ‘neoliberal’ phase following the 1997 Asian financial crisis (Grinberg 2011; Pirie 2012). 2 As a consequence, next to the classical IDL (CIDL) in which Global South countries largely served as producers of raw materials for export to the industrialised Global North, a new international division of labour (NIDL) emerged, as parts of Asia underwent a meteoric process of late industrialisation to become the ‘world’s factory’ (Starosta, 2016).…”

The Legacies of State Corporatism in Korea: Regulatory Capture in the Sewol Ferry Tragedy

“…Students of Korea's political economy have different views about whether post-crisis reforms have fundamentally changed the developmental state. Some scholars claim that the Korean state has been radically transformed into a neoliberal state (Ji 2013;Kalinowski 2008;Lim and Jang 2006;Pirie 2012;Yeung 2014). Others argue that the developmental state is still alive, or at least that significant elements of it have remained intact (Jang 2014; Kim 2012; Lim 2010; Park 2011; Stubbs 2009; Um, Lim and Hwang 2014).…”