Last updated on August 16, 2024
In little more than a month, Park Geun-hye will be inaugurated as Korea’s first woman president. She will also be the first single president and the first without children. She is also the first president who majored in science or engineering at university. Theses firsts bespeak her most urgent long-term task: diversifying Korea.
New leaders face two sets of challenges. The first is to deal with immediate issues left over from the previous administration. At times, these are pressing, as in the depth of the economic crisis in 1998. Other times, they are less so, as during the transfer from Kim Dae-jung to Roh Moo-hyun in 2003 and from Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak in 2008.
Park Geun-hye will take over during a time of weak economic growth and angst over the future. While nothing like the crisis in 1998, she needs to move quickly to strengthen economic growth and, more importantly, restore optimism in the future.
The second set of challenges is to develop a strategy for dealing with long-term problems that weaken the nation. Kim Dae-jung’s Sunshine Policy increased interaction with North Korea and was strategically designed to reduce tension and prepare the ground for eventual unification. During the depth of the economic crisis, reducing tension was closely related to efforts to attract more foreign investment.
Most leaders do not develop a strategy for dealing with long-term issues. Those that do, however, usually leave a lasting legacy, whereas those that do not go down in history as place holders. So far, President-elect Park has focused mostly on the sluggish economy and has said little about long-term problems.
If asked to name a long-term problem, most Koreans would probably mention unification. This problem is the big constant in Korean politics. To deal with it, however, South Korea has to deal with one of the most vexing long-term problems: the lack of diversity.
The lack of diversity in Korean life explains many of the problems facing the nation today. The social costs of the lack of diversity are high because those who cannot fit the social mold are cast aside. Success is defined as going to a few big-name universities, living in an apartment in the right part of Seoul (Gangnam?), holding down a prestigious white color job and, of course, the right physical appearance. It is a rough life that creates immense pressure on those who choose to play the game.
And what happens to those who play the game and fail or decide not to play the game in the first place? They drift in a world of alienation, struggling to find value in their lives. To overcome alienation, many turn to family and social networks but these ties are weakening amid the pressure. Among the vast numbers of the self-employed, there are success stories. The depth of alienation, however, explains entrenched social problems, such as the declining birthrate and the unusually high suicide rate.
The economic costs of the lack of diversity are less aberrant but equally high. Capitalism thrives on markets. Without markets, goods and services cannot be exchanged and money does not flow. Years of export-led growth have left Korea with a weak domestic market but the lack of diversity greatly exacerbates the problem. New goods and services cannot grow in an economy in which everybody wants to do the same thing and live the same way. Producers do not innovate and consumers get used to limited choices.
The problem for Korea is that this weak market capitalism saps the country of the creative energy it needs to compete in the world economy and to prepare for unification. The debate over ”economic democracy” during the presidential campaign was an acknowledgment of the limits of export-led growth through the chaebol.
The costs of the lack of diversity are easy to see but a solution remains elusive. A leader cannot wave a magic want to change attitudes. A leader can, however, speak of the need for change and implement policies to create an environment for the change to take place. To encourage the growth of social and economic diversity Park should study nations of similar size that have more social and economic diversity. France, Italy and the U.K. come to mind. Other advanced nations, both larger and smaller, have interesting ideas to offer.
Above all, she needs to understand that diversity is essential to building a prosperous and open society that can deal with the historic task of unification.
New leaders face two sets of challenges. The first is to deal with immediate issues left over from the previous administration. At times, these are pressing, as in the depth of the economic crisis in 1998. Other times, they are less so, as during the transfer from Kim Dae-jung to Roh Moo-hyun in 2003 and from Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak in 2008.
Park Geun-hye will take over during a time of weak economic growth and angst over the future. While nothing like the crisis in 1998, she needs to move quickly to strengthen economic growth and, more importantly, restore optimism in the future.
The second set of challenges is to develop a strategy for dealing with long-term problems that weaken the nation. Kim Dae-jung’s Sunshine Policy increased interaction with North Korea and was strategically designed to reduce tension and prepare the ground for eventual unification. During the depth of the economic crisis, reducing tension was closely related to efforts to attract more foreign investment.
Most leaders do not develop a strategy for dealing with long-term issues. Those that do, however, usually leave a lasting legacy, whereas those that do not go down in history as place holders. So far, President-elect Park has focused mostly on the sluggish economy and has said little about long-term problems.
If asked to name a long-term problem, most Koreans would probably mention unification. This problem is the big constant in Korean politics. To deal with it, however, South Korea has to deal with one of the most vexing long-term problems: the lack of diversity.
The lack of diversity in Korean life explains many of the problems facing the nation today. The social costs of the lack of diversity are high because those who cannot fit the social mold are cast aside. Success is defined as going to a few big-name universities, living in an apartment in the right part of Seoul (Gangnam?), holding down a prestigious white color job and, of course, the right physical appearance. It is a rough life that creates immense pressure on those who choose to play the game.
And what happens to those who play the game and fail or decide not to play the game in the first place? They drift in a world of alienation, struggling to find value in their lives. To overcome alienation, many turn to family and social networks but these ties are weakening amid the pressure. Among the vast numbers of the self-employed, there are success stories. The depth of alienation, however, explains entrenched social problems, such as the declining birthrate and the unusually high suicide rate.
The economic costs of the lack of diversity are less aberrant but equally high. Capitalism thrives on markets. Without markets, goods and services cannot be exchanged and money does not flow. Years of export-led growth have left Korea with a weak domestic market but the lack of diversity greatly exacerbates the problem. New goods and services cannot grow in an economy in which everybody wants to do the same thing and live the same way. Producers do not innovate and consumers get used to limited choices.
The problem for Korea is that this weak market capitalism saps the country of the creative energy it needs to compete in the world economy and to prepare for unification. The debate over ”economic democracy” during the presidential campaign was an acknowledgment of the limits of export-led growth through the chaebol.
The costs of the lack of diversity are easy to see but a solution remains elusive. A leader cannot wave a magic want to change attitudes. A leader can, however, speak of the need for change and implement policies to create an environment for the change to take place. To encourage the growth of social and economic diversity Park should study nations of similar size that have more social and economic diversity. France, Italy and the U.K. come to mind. Other advanced nations, both larger and smaller, have interesting ideas to offer.
Above all, she needs to understand that diversity is essential to building a prosperous and open society that can deal with the historic task of unification.