textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000674.txt

199 lines
9.1 KiB
Plaintext

The information in this file was recently published in FREEDOM -
the fortnightly anarchist journal published by FREEDOM PRESS:
FREEDOM PRESS (IN ANGEL ALLEY) 84B WHITECHAPEL HIGH STREET,
LONDON E1 7QX GREAT BRITAIN
Do write for a sample copy or for a copy of our booklist of
publications. We will be putting more of this information out so
watch this spot...
FOCUS ON...
SOUTH KOREA
South Korea has often been held up as a successful example of
what can be achieved by the New World Economy. With this issue we
turn our FOCUS... on South Korea to look at some of the issues
raised...
As South Korea contemplates a future of integration into the
New World Economy the population is sparing some time to take at
glance over its shoulder at its past. Its lessons do not always
make the South Koreans keen to follow their President, Kim Young
Sam, who is described in the west as a comfortable winner in the
last elections. He got 42% of the vote which was actually cast -
somewhat similar to a Mrs Thatcher - and like her he has never
enjoyed widespread popular support but rather the support of
sectional interests which, in the Korean context, means from the
emmerging urban middle classes.
The rest are not so keen on Kim Young Sam's flirtations with
global capitalism. Indeed one recent survey found that almost
half of all South Koreans oppose direct foreign investment in the
country, while two thirds were against the lowering of trade
barriers.
A recent report by Political & Economic Risk Consultancy
suggested that South Korea ...
was the most nationalistic country in Asia was the most
bureaucratic after China and Indonesia had an economy dominated
by cartels and state-owned companies discriminated more than any
other nation against foreign investment was the most
protectionist nation in Asia had the highest potential for labour
unrest had greater potential for social unrest even than China
This, as we say, reflects a certain historical awareness of the
people. Korea has never fully escaped the legacy it inherited
when it went into almost self-imposed exile nearly 400 years ago
after repeated invasions by Manchus and the Japanese. This earnt
it the nickname of the Hermit Kingdom and it was one of the last
countries to establish contact with the west. All this can of
course be seen still in North Korea where the paranoid regime of
Pyongyang has successfully perverted the traditional Korean
principle of juche or self-reliance.
South Korea, meanwhile, has suffered another Japanese invasion
but of a slightly different kind. Over 90% of South Korean
exports of electronic equipment, for example, are produced by
affiliates of Japanese countries. Here we should remember that
the most important industries involved in the globalisation of
economic activity and the new International Division of Labour -
the hallmark of capitalism this end of the twentieth century -
are often in the electronics sector, (also we should mention
textiles and clothing in this category, important industries in
other countries in the region). These are industries where
profits are hard to maintain through increases in technological
inputs but relatively easy to increase by substituting low wage
for high-way labour - heard it before? Is Korea so special? Not
at all. This means that the 'manufacturing' undertaken in
peripheral settings by transnational corporations is more often
than not merely assembly, with the manufacture of components that
require higher levels of skill and/or technology - particularly
in the area of research and development -being undertaken in core
nations - albeit in settings that are often outside traditional
manufacturing regions - silicon chip valleys and the like. As we
say there nothing new in all this. The story we saw of the
maquiladoras in Mexico (see Freedom Vol 55 No.3) is thus seen
to be repeated here. South Korea's development miracle is in
large part the same old story of a country becoming a glorified
factory of foreign TNCs. But also, as we so often find when
development is so strongly lopsided towards one industrial
sector, uneven development is the outcome (again check out how
happy the peasants in Mexico are at the moment). Because the
basis of economic growth has been in the manufacturing sector,
the larger industrial cities and the highly urbanised provinces
have experienced relatively high levels of economic performance.
Rural incomes in South Korea have been supported through price-
support subsidies - not a very endearing notion for those 'free'
market apologists - but rural incomes and per capita consumption
remain at less than half those of towns and cities. It is in the
largest cities and their metropolitan regions, however, where
living standerds are, in many respects, highest. It is here that
both public and private investment have been most noticeable. The
result is that the cities of Saoul, Incheon, and Anyang and the
surrounding province of Gyeonggi, in the Northwestern corner of
the country, constitute a clear 'core' of prosperity with a
'fragmented periphery' that corresponds to the highland regions
of the south and northeast. Highlighting these factors somewhat
are some statistics we can find reported in a new book by Robert
E. Bedeski - an Australian based academic. We give the following
extract as a taste of some of the statistics:
Demographic change has also been tranforming Korean society. In
the period since establishment of the Republic, there has been a
major migration to the cities in the search for employment and
higher living standards. During 1988, for example, rural
populations decreased by 6.4%. The flow to the cities has made
farms an increasingly male domain, as women and young persons go
to jobs in the urban areas.
According to the 1985 census... South Korea had a population of
40,448,486 and was the world's fourth most densely populated
country, with 408 persons per square kilometre. Nearly a quarter
of the population resided in the greater Seoul area... As South
Korea modernises, the population structure changes, and living
standards have improved. Two major results of change have been
the expansion of the urbanised population, and the growth of an
urban middle class. In 1990, the rural population was 25.6 % of
the total, compared with 72% in 1960. Because of the mountanous
terrain, only 21.7% of the total land area is under cultivation,
and the amount available for farming becomes less every year as
more urbanised and industrial sites are created...
Such movements towards the urban centres have the usual
predictable consequences:
With 40% of the nation's population in the greater Seoul area,
the housing crunch was becoming serious. At the end of 1991,
there were 10,580,000 family units in 7,870,000 housing units,
indicating that over a quarter of Korean families were sharing
their units with another family. Crowding was almost entirely an
urban phenomenon.
South Korea has been presented as The Jewel in the Crown of
NICs (New Industrial Countries) and is pointed to as a shining
example of successful development - that it development in the
mirror image of the core industrial countries. So much so that it
hopes next year to become the first Asian member of the OECD. In
this light Bedeski's book makes for an interesting read. All the
more so as he is sympathetic, in many ways, to the apologists for
South Korea. Certainly some of the economic statistics look
impressive: GDP per capita in the late 60s was around $200. By
1992 this had risen to $7000. But as the author also makes clear
in this academic and objective analysis the problem with such
averaging of figures is not what they show but what they don't
show.
For example in the light of such statistics South Korea is
often presented as having relatively equitable income
distribution. However, the book calls this sharply into question:
Nearly one-fifth of the population holds 42.2% of national
income... the governments 1990 budget was seen by many as
worsening the wealth distribution problem... At the lower end of
society, it is estimated that over three million people live in
poverty. The economic planning board reported that 7.7% of the
entire population receive significant public assistance.
Indeed one can begin to see why South Korea might hope to join
the OECD next year in this light. Such damming figures would
stand up well in comparison with almost any European member
State: inequitable distribution of wealth; unacceptable levels of
poverty (usually fuelled by high levels of unemployment) and the
new beast: stagflation - impossible according to economic theory
but there for all to see. Indeed stagflation turns out to be the
only real miracle capitalism has to offer. Successful economies
in capitalist terms require a radical redefinition of 'success'.
Financial Times 23 June 94 The Transformation of South Korea by
Robert E. Bedeski. Published by Routledge.