Despite resentment against Japan for its colonial domination of the Korean Peninsula, South Korea followed Japan in its model for postwar economic development. In both countries, the central government established close links between commercial banks and companies while ensuring that an obedient central bank provided adequate liquidity. Behind all this were neo-mercantilist policies dressed up under the modern guise of export-led development.
Two seminal events have discredited the Japanese model and its variations. On the one hand, the bursting of Japan's bubble economy brought on a relentless era of slow economic growth. On the other hand, the turmoil that swept through East Asia in 1997 and 1998 challenged the notion that governments could utilize bank-dominated financial systems to boost growth by relying on exports.
Although Japan served as a detached mentor over the past decades, Asia's biggest economy is being edged off the radar screen of its neighbors. This reflects the fact that Japan's homegrown economic malaise attracts little favorable attention while China's high growth offers considerable allure. The new reality is that China is becoming South Korea's biggest Asian trading partner.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Indeed, President Roh Moo-hyun has stated that China is more important to his country's economic future. Evidence of this is the fact that South Korea's investment of US$310 million in China over the first three months of this year represent an increase of 121 percent, year-on-year. As it is, about 40 percent of South Korea's total overseas investment in the first quarter went to China.
China's trade policies are forcing other Asian countries to engage in a constant search to redefine their comparative advantage. At the same time, China has increasingly become a market for goods produced by its Asian neighbors.
And so it is that Seoul has begun to find its own way outside Tokyo's shadow. Other evidence of this is that conventional wisdom has it that Seoul differed significantly from Tokyo in response to the distress experienced during the 1990s. While Japanese officials are depicted as being guilty of malign neglect, South Korean leaders are widely credited an having taken the initiative to oversee a departure from the past.
It is true that South Korea experienced corporate restructuring and moves were made to sort out problems in the financial sector. To bolster the domestic banking system, Seoul withdrew over 86 trillion won (US$72 billion) of bad loans from the banking system supported by a US$58-billion loan from the IMF. However, a number of structural problems persist that make it difficult for foreign investors to do business in Korea.
Five years after being shaken by the unsustainable expansion and debt of many of the largest chaebol, some of the same underlying financial problems remain. As in the past, many South Korean borrowers expect creditors to roll over their debt endlessly.
But an interesting test case is currently being played out. For its part, Goldman Sachs was the first foreign company to be successful in petitioning South Korean judges to force a delinquent domestic company into receivership. After amassing vast amounts of debt, the company avoided solving its problems and was granted a five-year moratorium on its debt-repayment by creditors while its debt was restructured without its operations being monitored by the courts.
The American investment bank took action when Jinro Ltd failed to make scheduled payments at the end of March on US$200 million worth of debt. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, the Korean company's management can be forced out and replaced.
Unfortunately, the ugly face of Korean economic chauvinism has cropped up with denunciations coming from trade unionists and other parties disguising their self-interest behind patriotism. The truth is that putting the company under receivership is likely to raise the company's value and provide surviving employees with greater job security.
Doubtless, foreign investors will be watching these events closely. Leaders in Seoul should also take note if they have any hope for Korea to continue attracting additional foreign capital.
For the most part, foreign investments were shunned until the late 1990s when outside funds were increasingly viewed as a way to escape an economic slowdown. In 2000, about US$16 billion in foreign direct investments came in, exceeding the total from 1962 to 1995. And foreign investors have collectively purchased about US$6 billion in distressed South Korean assets since 1998.
All this has helped prop up South Korea's economic growth that is expected to exceed 4 percent this year. Even so, many underlying problems loom ominously on the horizon. These include accounting scandals, a volatile real-estate bubble and problems in the credit-card industry -- all the more reason for Seoul to abandon the failed economic policies followed by Tokyo.
Christopher Lingle is global strategist for eConoLytics.com.
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS