Download Dominant Capital and the Transformation of Korean Capitalism PDF

TitleDominant Capital and the Transformation of Korean Capitalism
TagsKorean
LanguageEnglish
File Size2.8 MB
Total Pages233
Document Text Contents
Page 2

iv








Abstract






After the 1997 financial crisis, the neo-liberal restructuring of the Korean political

economy accelerated dramatically. While there is a general consensus that the reform

has had negative consequences for Korean society, heated debates continue over the

culprits of the 1997 crisis and the changes that followed in its wake. Major opinions

have largely coalesced into two opposing camps: one, finding the cause in cronyism

and the anachronistic management of the Korean , advocates market-centred

economic reforms; the other, attributing the cause to the “unproductive” nature of

foreign financial capital, suggests that the restoration of statist development model, in

which the economy is led by the state- nexus, is a better way for Korean

society.

The main reason for the asymmetry between the “progressive” critiques and

“conservative” solutions of these two theoretical camps lies in their misunderstanding

of the way in which power evolves in capitalist society. Their theories, which are

premised on the dichotomy between “politics” and “economics,” are blind to the

mutual transformation of capital and the state—to the historical changes in the nature

of these institutions through the of power.

The central assumption of this dissertation is that it is necessary to understand

the mutual transformation of capital and the state and the evolution of the capitalist

ruling class in order to grasp the nature of the post-1997 social restructuring. For this

purpose, it adopts Nitzan and Bichler’s perspective of capital as power. From this

perspective, situating our understanding of the 1997 crisis and the post-crisis

restructuring in the context of the half-century-long evolution of capitalist power in

Korea and the transformation of the regimes of differential capital accumulation, this

dissertation makes three interrelated arguments.

It argues, first, that the post-1997 restructuring firmly entrenched capitalization

as the of Korean society. Second, it argues that globalization has

incorporated Korea’s dominant capital into the global structure of absentee owners

Page 116

104


aid and loans. It was very significant for the US in its confrontation with the USSR to

establish a firm security alliance in East Asia that would incorporate Japan and South

Korea. The US took part in the Korean War, sacrificing about 40,000 soldiers. In the

wake of that war, it kept providing not only military assistance but also economic

support to the Korean government.




Figure 3.13 Foreign Capital Inflows and Domestic Savings


Note: “GDI” stands for “Gross Domestic Investment,” which is also called
“Gross Capital Formation.”

Sources: World Development Indicators for GDI and GDS; Korea Statistical
Yearbook (each year) for foreign aid and loans.



It also helped keep the Korean dictator in power by giving his government political

and diplomatic support. For example, the US played an important role in restoring

Korea’s relationship with Japan (S. G. Park, 1998: 50). The Korean government

received about $1 billion from the Japanese government in reparations for Japanese

colonial rule. Part of the money was embezzled by the ruling party and spent on

“political activities”; the rest of it was spent building industrial facilities like Posco,

which has become one of the world’s largest steelmakers. The restored diplomatic

relationship with Japan enabled Korea to develop an export-oriented industrialization

strategy characterized by triangular trade: capital goods were imported from Japan,

Korean capitalists used these capital goods to assemble or manufacture consumer

goods, and the finished goods were exported to the US market.

Page 117

105


This triangular trade enabled Korea to achieve rapid growth in exports, which,

in turn, boosted the economy as a whole. The ratio of export to GDP had grown from

3 percent in 1960, to 40 percent in 1987 (World Development Indicators). Figure 3.14

shows that, between1971 and 1987, the total amount of exports expanded by a factor

of 37. Yet these amazing growth rates of total exports are dwarfed by the

performance of dominant capital. As illustrated in Figure 3.14, during the same

period, the exports of the Samsung and LG Groups rose by a factor of 1,065. The

state’s export-oriented policies were applied in a highly differential manner, and that

differential application boosted the fortunes of dominant capital relative to the

average. For example, differential export subsidies, based on a dual exchange rate,

made dominant capital—but not lesser capitals—price competitive in international

markets. Government subsidies to exporting companies accounted for 58.7 percent of

every dollar earned abroad in 1963; 23.4 percent in 1965; 37.9 percent in 1970; 31.4

percent in1975 (I. J. Seo, 2003: 88). On top of these subsidies, exporting firms were

also subsidized with a tax reduction on every dollar earned abroad.




Figure 3.14 The Evolution of Exports (current $US, rebased 1971=100)


Note: Series are expressed as five-year moving averages.

Sources: Samsung, 1998; LG, 1997; World Development Indicators for Korea’s
exports.


The political economic relationship between Korea and the US was further

consolidated during the second half of the 1960s, when the US called for Korea’s

Page 232

220


Park, Sae-Gil. 1998. The Rewritten Korean Modern History. Korean. Seoul:

Dolbegae.

Park, Won-Am and Choi, Gongpil. 2002. Assessment of Korea's Financial

Liberalization. Seoul: the Korea Institute of Finance.

Polanyi, Karl. 1957. The Great Transformation: the political and economic origins of

our time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Preston, Peter W. 1985. New Trends in Development Theory: essays in development

and social theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Robinson, William. 2007. The Pitfalls of Realist Analysis of Global Capitalism: A

Critique of Ellen Meiksins Wood's Empire of Capital. Historical Materialism,

vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 71-93.

Rostow, Walt. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.

Cambridge University Press.

Ryu, Dong-Min and Ahn Hyun-Hyo. The Development of Neoliberalism and Its

Alternative in Korea. The Review of Social Economy, vol. 35, pp.237-282.

Korean. Korea Social & Economic Studies Association.

Samsung. 1998. The Sixty Years History of Samsung. Korean. Seoul: Samsung

Publishing.

________. 1988. The Fifty Years History of Samsung. Korean. Seoul: Samsung

Publishing.

Seo, Ik-Jin. 2003. The Developmental Mode of the Korean Industrialization. In

Byung-Chun Lee, et al., the Developmental Dictatorship and the Era of

Jung-Hee Park. Korean. Seoul: Creation and Critics.

Stiglitz, Joseph. 2006. Stability with Growth: Macroeconomics, Liberalization, and

Development. Oxford University Press.

____________. 1999. Reforming the Global Economic Architecture: Lessons from

Recent Crises. Journal of Finance, vol. 54, Issue 4, pp. 1508-1521.

____________. 1989. Markets, Market Failures, and Development. American

Economic Review, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 197-203.

Summers, Lawrence. 2000. International Financial Crises: Causes, Prevention, and

Cures. American Economic Review, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 1-16.

Tilly, Charles. 1990. Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1990. Basil

Blackwell.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1921. The Engineers and the Price System. New York: Harbinger

(1963 version).

Page 233

221


Wade, Robert. 1998. The Asian Debt-and-development Crisis of 1997-?: Causes and

Consequences. World Development, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1535-53.

____________. 1992. East Asia's Economic Success: Conflicting Perspectives,

Partial Insights, Shaky Evidence. World Politics, vol. 44, no. 2 (January),

270-320.

____________. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of

Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Weiss, Linda & John. M. Hobson. 1995. States and Economic Development. Polity

Press.

Williamson, John. 1990. What Washington Means by Policy Reform. In John

Williamson (ed.), Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened?.

Washington: Institute for International Economics.

Woo-Cumings, Meredith. 1991. Race to the Swift: State and Finance in Korean

Industrialization. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wood, Ellen. 2006. Logics of Power: A Conversation with David Harvey. Historical

Materialism, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 9-34.

World Bank. 1993. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy.

(World Bank Policy Research Reports). New York: Oxford University Press.

Yoo, Chul-Gyu. 2003. Political and Institutional Conditions for Financial Repression:

In the Case of the Korean Development. In Byung-Chun Lee, et al., the

Developmental Dictatorship and the Era of Jung-Hee Park. Korean. Seoul:

Creation and Critics.

Yoon, Young-Sun. 2011. A Study on the Impact of the Temporary Investment Tax

Credit on the Capital Investments. Korean. Kyung-Won University.

Similer Documents