Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T23:33:01.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Evolution of South Korea's Rural Institutions: The Political Economy of Export Promotion and Market Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Extract

South Korea's economic takeoff in the 1960s triggered a scholarly debate over the causes behind its economic growth. Neoclassical economists and “statist” scholars focused on government policies toward the industrial sector, but as this article shows, they have neglected to consider the political economy behind the government's targeting of the agricultural and livestock sectors for export promotion. In fact, the South Korean government's support of export-led growth—aimed at the rural sector as well as industry—transformed the nation's agricultural and livestock institutions from instruments of development and export promotion into protectionist mechanisms. This article discusses how complete market liberalization would have resulted in more efficient resource allocation and reveals how political considerations affected the institutional arrangement in the South Korean countryside and the subsequent liberalization of agricultural and beef markets.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

I would like to thank Stephan Haggard and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. Of course, I am responsible for any and all errors in this article.Google Scholar

1. Chen, Edward K. Y., Hyper-growth in Asian Economies: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (London: Macmillan, 1979).Google Scholar

2. Soon, Cho, The Dynamics of Korean Economic Development (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1994), p. 30; Kim, Kwang Suk, “Outward-Looking Industrialization Strategy: The Case of Korea,” in Hong, Wontack and Krueger, Anne O., eds., Trade and Development in Korea (Seoul: Korea Development Institute, 1975), p. 22; Westphal, Larry E. and Kim, Kwang Suk, “Korea,” in Bela Balassa, Development Strategies in Semi-industrializing Economies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

3. Kuznets, Paul W., Korean Economic Development: An Interpretive Model (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994).Google Scholar

4. For example, see Amsden, Alice H., Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989); Wade, Robert, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

5. Ibid.; Cheng, Tun-jen, Haggard, Stephan, and Kang, David, “Institutions and Growth in Korea and Taiwan: The Bureaucracy,” Journal of Development Studies 34, no. 6 (August 1998): 87111; Haggard, Stephan, Kim, Byung-kook, and Moon, Chung-in, “The Transition to Export-led Growth in South Korea: 1954–1966,” Journal of Asian Studies 50, no. 4 (November 1991): 850–873; Kim, Eun Mee, Big Business, Strong State: Collusion and Conflict in South Korean Development, 1960–1990 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997); Kim, Kwang Suk and Hong, Sung Duk, Accounting for Rapid Economic Growth in Korea, 1963–1995 (Seoul: KDI Press, 1997); Vogel, Ezra F., The Four Little Dragons: The Spread of Industrialization in East Asia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991); Woronoff, Jon, Asia's Miracle Economies (New York: M. E. Sharp, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Most analysts seem to have missed Anne Krueger's observation that in Korea “encouragement and incentives were extended to any and all who could export.” Krueger, Anne O., “Contrasts in Transition to Market-Oriented Economies: India and Korea.” In Hayami, Yujiro and Aoki, Masahiko, eds., The Institutional Foundations of East Asian Economic Development (New York: St. Martin's, 1998), p. 189.Google Scholar

7. The security threat of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) and the motivation it provided for development were tremendous in 1961. The DPRK had been recording greater economic growth rates after the Korean War and the coup leaders would have been responsible for repelling any DPRK provocation. In addition, the DPRK system provided an alternative to the dismal conditions in the ROK, and subsequently could have been a catalyst for social unrest, which had been increasing during the Second Republic (1960–1961). The first clause in the revolutionary declaration issued by the coup leaders stated that “anti-communism is the number one state policy and this policy would be strengthened.” Nationalism encouraged the junta to promote exports and earn foreign exchange in order to end dependence on US aid. See Hae-gyun, An, Han-gug haengjeongche-je-lon [Korean Administration Systems] (Seoul: Seoul University Press, 1988), pp. 140142.Google Scholar

8. In 1936 the number of Korean cattle reached a peak of 1,703,000, but by 1944 the number had dropped to 887,000 head, and by 1945 it was 600,000 head. See NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa [A 10-Year History of the NLCF] (Seoul: National Livestock Cooperatives Federation, 1992), pp. 96, 150; Korea Rural Economics Institute (KREI), Han-gug-nongjeong 40nyeon-sa II [Korean Agricultural Policy: A 40-Year History, vol. II] (Seoul: KREI, 1989), pp. 865–866; Han-gug chug-san-yeon-gam 1993 [Korea Livestock Yearbook 1993] (Seoul: The Agriculture, Fisheries & Livestock News, 1993), pp. 103–104.Google Scholar

9. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong 40nyeon-sa II, pp. 870871.Google Scholar

10. Hae-gyun, An, Han-gug haengjeongche-je-lon , pp. 132134.Google Scholar

11. Won-woo, Seo, Han-gug beob-ui i-hae [Understanding Korean Law] (Seoul: Du-seongsa, 1996), pp. 2627. For a review of the SCNR's legislative activities, see ROK National Assembly, ch. 6, “Gugga jaegeon choegohoeui,” in Dae-han-min-gug gug-hoe 50nyeon-sa [Republic of Korea National Assembly: A 50-Year History] (Seoul: National Assembly Secretariat, 1998), pp. 301–351.Google Scholar

12. See Cole, David C. and Lyman, Princeton N., Korean Development: The Interplay of Politics and Economics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 37; or Huer, Jon, Marching Orders: The Role of the Military in South Korea's “Economic Miracle” 1961–1971 (New York: Greenwood, 1989), pp. 59–62. The coup marked a generational change in Korea's political leadership, as 55.2 percent of the junta's leaders were in their forties and 39.6 percent of them were in their thirties. See also Bae-ho, Hahn and Kyu-taik, Kim, “Korean Political Leaders: Their Social Origins and Skills,” Asian Survey 3, no. 7 (July 1969): 305–323.Google Scholar

13. Arguably, the coup leaders had emotional ties to their “roots” and wished to help their families and friends in the countryside. Even today the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation (NACF) appeals to urban consumer links to their rural hometowns in advertising domestic food products.Google Scholar

14. Urban areas defined as cities (si) with populations of at least 50,000 based on census reports.Google Scholar

15. Many Korean farmers had to turn to the informal sector for credit with very high interest rates because of Korea's underdeveloped financial sector and the low capitalization of the Agricultural Bank.Google Scholar

16. For a detailed discussion of the liquidation of usurious loans see Hwan, Ban Sung, Yong, Moon Pal, and Perkins, Dwight H., Rural Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 214216; or NACF, Nonghyeob 30nyeon-sa [NACF: A 30-Year History] (Seoul: National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, 1991), pp. 430–431.Google Scholar

17. “Bag-dae-tonglyeong yu-sin <ji-bangjanggwan-hoe>” [President Park's Instructions: A Meeting with Provincial Governors], Nonghyeob-sin-mun [The Cooperative News], August 31, 1964.Google Scholar

18. See MacDonald, Donald S., U.S.-Korean Relations from Liberation to Self-Reliance: The Twenty-Year Period (Boulder: Westview, 1992), pp. 92103, 280–281, 285–292. The US suspended economic aid for a few months after the coup and then linked future economic aid to its efficient utilization.Google Scholar

19. Gyeongje-gi-hoeg-won (Economic Planning Board), Gae-bal yeon-dae-ui gyeongje-jeongchaeg: Gyeongje-gi-hoeg-won 30nyeon-sa [The Economic Policies of the Development Era: A 30-Year History of the Economic Planning Board] (Seoul: EPB, 1994), pp. 3132.Google Scholar

20. In 1963, under pressure from the United States, the SCNR was disbanded and Park ran for president as the candidate of the newly established Democratic Republican Party (DRP). Park had significant advantages in the election held on October 15, 1963. The DRP was superior in organization and funding, the government had strong influence over or control of the media, many political rivals had been legally excluded from political activities, and the date of the election was announced only two months in advance. Park defeated Yun Bo-seon in a close direct election, capturing 4,702,640 votes to Yun's 4,546,614. Park won the election with about 47 percent of the popular vote. See Eckert, Carter J., Ki-baik, Lee, Ick, Lew Young, Robinson, Michael, and Wagner, Edward W., Korea Old and New (Seoul: Ilchokak, 1990), pp. 361363. For a discussion of Kennedy's relationship with Park and the return to civilian rule, see Se-jin, Kim, The Politics of Military Revolution in Korea (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1971), pp. 125–137.Google Scholar

21. Robert Nathan and associates prepared an economic development plan for the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency in March 1954. The Nathan Plan assumed that Korea would be able to produce a rice surplus for export. See Cole, David C. and Lyman, Princeton N., Korean Development: The Interplay of Politics and Economics , pp. 203210.Google Scholar

22. KREI, Han-gug nongjeong 40nyeon-sa I, p. 30.Google Scholar

23. Ibid. Google Scholar

24. KREI, Han-gug nongjeong 40nyeon-sa II, pp. 121122.Google Scholar

25. The dairy industry, which was ransacked in the aftermath of liberation from the Japanese, declined even further under the First Republic. Dairy cattle stocks had dropped to 860 head by 1960, and South Korea had become dependent on foreign aid for imported powdered milk. The Ten-Year Dairy Promotion Plan used aid and loans to import dairy cattle so that the nation could develop a dairy products industry. Other objectives of the plan were to expand idle land into pasture, increase employment in the countryside, increase the amount of manure for use as fertilizer, and increase the dietary protein intake for citizens. See KREI, Han-gug nongjeong 40nyeon-sa I, pp. 874877.Google Scholar

26. After liberation, Korea exported its first livestock products in 1959 with the shipment of 2,030 hogs and 20 head of cattle to Hong Kong. See KREI, Han-gug nongjeong 40nyeon-sa I, p. 30, and II, p. 122; and NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa, p. 882.Google Scholar

27. “So 3000du i-sang su-chul” [Exporting More Than 3,000 Head of Cattle], Nonghyeob-sin-mun , March 11, 1965.Google Scholar

28. KREI, Han-gug nongjeong 40nyeon-sa I, p. 30.Google Scholar

29. “Jeungsan su-chul geonseol: sig-lyang dae-lyang hwag-bo dwisbad-chimdo [Increasing Production-Exports-Construction: Countermeasures also Ensured Against Food Shortages-Financial Supports],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , January 14, 1965.Google Scholar

30. For a discussion of agricultural inputs and growth, and government investment during this period see ch. 4, “The Sources of Agricultural Growth,” and ch. 6, “Government Investment Policy and Plans,” in Hwan, Ban Sung et al., Rural Development. Google Scholar

31. Korea's surplus labor and land scarcity indicate a comparative disadvantage in agriculture and livestock, but this did not deter the government from targeting these sectors for exports in the 1960s.Google Scholar

32. “Su-chul jeungdae-e bun-bal” [Exerting Effort to Increase Exports], Nonghyeob-sin-mun , December 6, 1965.Google Scholar

33. Ibid. Google Scholar

34. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , p. 884.Google Scholar

35. In 1965 the Korean government completed negotiations to normalize diplomatic relations with Japan. Opposition to the treaty was widespread, but Korean leaders insisted it was necessary for economic development. “Bag-dae-tonglyeong yeon-du-gyo-seo: jeungsan-su-chul geonseol jeon-lyeog, 10nyeon-nae geun-dae-hwa-i-lug” [President Park's Annual Address: Complete Devotion to Increasing Production-Exporting-Construction; Achieving Modernization Within 10 Years], Nonghyeob-sin-mun , January 24, 1966.Google Scholar

36. “Nonglimjanggwan-ebag-tong-yeongssi: su-chul nong-eob-deung-ui ji-jeong [Minister of Agriculture to Mr. Pak Tong-myo: Emphasizing Agriculture as an Export Sector],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , February 28, 1966.Google Scholar

37. Special cooperatives included things such as livestock, beekeeping, and silk. NACF, Nonghyeob 30nyeon-sa , p. 665.Google Scholar

38. The First Five-Year Economic Plan expired at the end of 1966, and the second plan began in January 1967.Google Scholar

39. “Bag-dae-tonglyeong ji-sa yo-ji: chug-nongjeongchaeg gye-sog gyeon-ji sae-nongmin-eun in-gan-gug-bo [A Summary of President Park's Commendation: Continual Adherence to Principle Agricultural Policies: New Farmers as a Human National Treasure],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , October 3, 1966.Google Scholar

40. “Chug-san yug-seongchaeg-deung ganggu: bag-dae-tonglyeong ji-si pil-yo-su-geub-bun yeo-yu-issge [Livestock Promotion Policies Considered: President Park's Instructions; Marginal Adaptability in the Supply and Demand of Fertilizer],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , October 24, 1966. Park's directives also included a plan for the supply and demand of fertilizer, a proposal to increase sweet potato consumption, and the establishment of special production zones in rural areas. Park had to be seriously concerned about economic performance and income in the rural sector, as the presidential election was approaching. And since economic growth in the countryside had been lagging in 1966, Park was in danger of losing the rural vote, which was crucial for his reelection in 1967.Google Scholar

41. “Chug-san jin-heung-ui sae-jeon-gi: chug-san-in-dae-hoe, geonuimundo chae-taeg [A New Turning Point in Livestock Promotion: Livestock Producers Conference, Proposal, and Adoption],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , December 12, 1966.Google Scholar

42. Ibid. Google Scholar

43. ROK National Assembly, Dae-han-min-gug-gug-hoe 50nyeon-sa , p. 374. (Emphasis added.) Google Scholar

44. Gyeongje-gi-hoeg-won (Economic Planning Board), Gae-bal-yeon-dae-ui gyeongje-jeongchaeg: gyeongje-gi-hoeg-won 30nyeon-sa [The Economic Policies of the Development Era: A 30 Year History of the Economic Planning Board] (Seoul: EPB, 1994), pp. 358359.Google Scholar

45. “Jeon-gug-nongmin-e-ge bo-nae-neun bag-dae-tonglyeong sin-nyeon-me-se-ji” [President Park's New Year's Message to All the Nation's Farmers], Nonghyeob-sin-mun , January 1, 1967.Google Scholar

46. Ibid. Google Scholar

47. “Bag-dae-tonglyeong chi-sa: nongchon geun-dae-hwa eobs-i jo-gug-geun-dae-hwa eobsda [The Nation Cannot Modernize Without Rural Modernization],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , February 27, 1967.Google Scholar

48. “Nongga 99%e myeon-se hye-taeg [Tax Exemption Benefits for 99 Percent of Farm Households],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , May 1, 1967.Google Scholar

49. Chosun Ilbo, May 6, 1967, cited in Kim, C. I., “Patterns in 1967 Korean Elections,” Pacific Affairs 41, no. 1 (Spring 1968): 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. EPB, Gae-bal-yeon-dae-ui gyeongje-jeongchaeg , p. 360.Google Scholar

51. “Nongsusanmul kagongsuch'ul jungjeom [Exports of Processed Agricultural and Fishery Products Emphasized],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , June 26, 1967.Google Scholar

52. There were 2,400 head of dairy cattle in 1962 when the dairy industry was targeted for development. In January 1962, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry decided to import 500 bulls for breeding dairy cattle; the imports were financed with loans from the German Development Bank, the World Bank, and Canada. The following month the first milk cooperative was formed in Seoul with 88 members and 448 dairy cows. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , pp. 150, 156–157, 883.Google Scholar

53. “Bun-yu-su-ib gye-sog gyu-je: nonglimbu, nag-nongjin-heung-wi-hae bangchim bal-hyo [The Prohibition of Powdered Milk Imports Will Continue: The MAF Reveals the Intention to Develop the Dairy Industry],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , June 26, 1967.Google Scholar

54. The meeting included cabinet ministers, provincial governors, and the chairmen of the NACF, the National Fisheries Cooperatives Federation, the Office of National Fisheries Administration, the Office of Rural Development, and the Office of Forestry. See “Nongmin-so-deug-jeungdae-e jeon-lyeog [All-Out Effort to Increase Farm and Fishery Income],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun , July 24, 1967; and “Bag-dae-tonglyeong yu-sin [President Park's Instructions],” Nonghyeob-sin-mun, July 24, 1967.Google Scholar

55. The Agricultural and Fishery Development Corporation was founded in December 1967. The public corporation at one time had twenty-three subsidiaries including Korea Cold Storage, which would later become a distributor of imported beef during liberalization in the 1990s. See KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong 40nyeon-sa I, p. 36.Google Scholar

56. Ibid. Google Scholar

57. See Hwan, Ban Sung, et al., Rural Development , pp. 2431.Google Scholar

58. Kim Chung-yum served as vice minister of finance, vice minister of commerce and industry, minister of finance, and minister of commerce and industry between 1962 and 1969. He was President Park's chief of staff from 1969 to 1978. See Chung-yum, Kim, Han-gug-gyeongje-jeongchaeg 30nyeon-sa [Korean Economic Policy: A 30-Year History] (Seoul: JoongAng Daily, 1995), pp. 184187.Google Scholar

59. See Hwan, Ban Sung, et al., Rural Development , pp. 246252. Also see KREI, Han-gug-nongjeongjeongchaeg 40nyeon-sa I, p. 37.Google Scholar

60. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeongjeongchaeg 40nyeon-sa II, pp. 877878.Google Scholar

61. The plan budgeted 8.511 billion won for rural projects. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong-il-ji [Republic of Korea Agricultural Policy Diary] (Seoul: KREI, 1985), p. 295.Google Scholar

62. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeongjeongchaeg 40nyeon-sa II, p. 878.Google Scholar

63. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong-il-ji , p. 298.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., p. 299.Google Scholar

65. Ibid., p. 317.Google Scholar

66. Ibid., p. 305.Google Scholar

67. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , p. 169.Google Scholar

68. The Livestock Bureau then included four sections: feed, policy, production, and sanitation. See KREI, Han-gug-nongjeongjeongchaeg 40nyeon-sa II, p. 878.Google Scholar

69. NACF, Nonghyeob 30nyeon-sa , p. 666.Google Scholar

70. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeongjeongchaeg 40nyeon-sa II, p. 880.Google Scholar

71. The registration of bloodlines and competition for hanu would later become part of industry efforts to differentiate hanu from imported beef. The name of the competition was changed to “National Livestock Competition [Jeon-gug-ga-chug-pumpyeonghoe]” the following year and was expanded to include dairy cattle and pigs in 1975. The name was changed again, to “National Livestock Promotion Competition [Jeon-gug-chug-san-jin-heungdae-hoe].” See ibid., p. 879; NCLF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , p. 169.Google Scholar

72. Saemaul means “new village” in Korean.Google Scholar

73. In 1963 the DRP captured 110 of 175 seats (62.9 percent), and in 1967 the ruling party increased its share to 130 of 175 (74.3 percent). But in 1971 the DRP only won 113 of 204 seats (55.4 percent). See Kim, C. I. Eugene, “The 1971 Elections and the Transformation of the DRP,” ch. 3 in Kim, C. I. Eugene and Whan, Kihl Young, eds., Party Politics and Elections in Korea (Silver Spring, MD: Research Institute on Korean Affairs, 1976), pp. 3545.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., pp. 362363.Google Scholar

75. Ibid., pp. 299304.Google Scholar

76. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong-il-ji , pp. 368369.Google Scholar

77. Ibid., pp. 369370.Google Scholar

78. Ibid., p. 370.Google Scholar

79. Ibid., p. 372.Google Scholar

80. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong 40nyeon-sa , p. 881.Google Scholar

81. The new arrangement for the livestock promotion fund was effective from April 15, 1977. The tax on beef cattle was 7,000 won per head, and for pigs it was 1,000. The tax on milk was 2.0 percent, but this tax was shelved on April 1, 1982. See ibid., pp. 881882.Google Scholar

82. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong-il-ji , p. 391.Google Scholar

83. Ibid. p. 392.Google Scholar

84. Ibid. p. 393.Google Scholar

85. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , p. 193.Google Scholar

86. Ibid. Google Scholar

87. Ibid., pp. 193194.Google Scholar

88. Ibid., p. 197.Google Scholar

89. On March 9, 1978, the EPB selected thirty agricultural and livestock items that would be subject to price controls, and the MAF announced it would establish the LPA to “manage production, supply and demand, and price stability.” See KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong-il-ji , p. 406.Google Scholar

90. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 1Onyeon-sa , p. 195.Google Scholar

91. For a discussion of the politics behind the measures, see Haggard, Stephan, “From the Heavy Industry Plan to Stabilization: Macroeconomic Policy 1976–1980,” in Haggard, Stephan, Cooper, Richard N., Collins, Susan, Choongsoo, Kim, and Sung-tae, Ro, Macroeconomic Policy and Adjustment in Korea 1970–1990 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 5964.Google Scholar

92. KREI, Han-gug-nongjeong-il-ji , p. 409.Google Scholar

93. The Korean term for the NCU is Tongiljuchegungminhoe. Google Scholar

94. Hyung-sub, Yun, Han-gug jeongchi-lon [Korean Politics] (Seoul: Pagyongsa, 1988), pp. 292293; Hae-gyun, An, Han-gug haengjeongche-je-lon , pp. 314315.Google Scholar

95. Hyung-sub, Yun, Han-gug jeongchi-lon , p. 278.Google Scholar

96. Chun became KCIA director on April 14, 1980. The agency's name was changed to the National Security Planning Agency in 1981. Hae-gyun, An, Han-gug haengjeongche-je-lon , p. 349.Google Scholar

97. Ibid., pp. 318, 369–370.Google Scholar

98. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , p. 202.Google Scholar

99. The referendum was held on October 22, 1980, and 95.5 percent of the voters turned out. The new constitution was approved by 91.6 percent of those who voted. See Hae-gyun, An, Han-gug haengjeongche-je-lon , p. 372.Google Scholar

100. Fifth Republic Constitution, Article Nine, “The Economy,” Clause 124.Google Scholar

101. NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , p. 202.Google Scholar

102. Ibid. Google Scholar

103. Ibid. pp. 202206.Google Scholar

104. NLCF, “The Livestock Cooperative Law” (Seoul: NLCF, 1996); and NLCF, Chug-hyeob 10nyeon-sa , pp. 208210.Google Scholar

105. NLCF, “The Livestock Cooperative Law.” Google Scholar

106. Ibid. Google Scholar

107. Ibid. Google Scholar

108. Ibid. Google Scholar

109. EPB, Gae-bal-yeon-dae-ui gyeongje-jeongchaeg , p. 365.Google Scholar