Last updated on August 16, 2024
One of the keywords of the Lee Myung-bak administration was nation branding, but since it gave way to the new Park Geun-hye administration, nation branding has fallen out of public discourse. This is regrettable because important questions remain unanswered.
Perhaps the most important question is why branding is needed in the first place. Wikipedia states that “The word ‘brand’ is derived from the Old Norse ‘brandr’ meaning ‘to burn.’ It refers to the practice of producers burning their mark (or brand) onto their products.”
A brand, then, is a mark, a symbol attached to a commercial product or service. It makes it easy for consumers to associate a set of images with a product or service. That association, if positive, in turn helps the product or service sell.
When applied to a nation, a brand implies a set of images associated with the nation that, if managed correctly, create a positive image for the nation.
From here, the theory holds that a positive image helps promote products and services produced in the nation. The sudden popularity of Psy, for example, made K-pop cool, which made Korea cool, which in turn will help other Korean musicians.
Nation branding also refers to ideas, such as freedom and democracy. This explains why demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, for example, created an image of the Statue of Liberty in New York. They associated freedom and democracy with the United States.
At other times, nations are associated with images rather than a specific brand. French wine, Italian pasta, and Japanese sushi are examples of this type of branding. The association of nations with food helps explain the strong interest in branding Korean food during the previous administration.
The issue of branding leads to the question of why Korea needed or needs branding. During the years of dictatorship, Korea worried about its image, particularly with respect to its relationship with the U.S.
The Cold War forced the U.S. to overlook human rights abuses, but the U.S. had its limits. In the late 1970s, for example, President Jimmy Carter threatened to withdraw U.S. troops because of Korea’s human rights record. During the 1980s, the preparations for the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games broadened worries about Korea’s image to the entire world. A focus on recovery from the 1997 economic crisis brought renewed interest in Korea’s image.
The recent wave of interest in Korea’s image comes not from crisis, but from Korea’s entry into the select group of advanced nations in the late 2000s. The definition of an advanced nation is vague and every advanced nation has glaringly undeveloped sides.
At the least, an advanced nation is a democracy with a developed economy that creates a high level of well-being. The United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index (HDI), a frequently used measure of development, ranks Korea 12th in the world, right below Canada. Among nations with over 50 million people, Korea ranks fourth behind the United States, Germany, and Japan.
Considering the turmoil of the 20th century, Korea is an amazingly successful country. The problem with nation branding is that Korea’s image does not reflect its success. Images always follow reality, and time will likely improve Korea’s image. This leads to the question of what, if anything, national policy can do to improve Korea’s image.
Much of the recent nation branding effort focused on developing slogans and flashy websites. Part of the effort was to help foreigners develop a “correct understanding” of Korea. Though not damaging, such efforts are ineffective because people will see what they see and think what they think.
One such example is the capital investment requirement for a D-8 foreign investor visa. For a number of years, the minimum capital level was 50 million won. As time went on abuses arose, and this was raised to 100 million won in 2010. In 2012, the government proposed to raise the minimum to 300 million won, no doubt out of a desire to squeeze out yet more abuses.
Preventing abuses of visa status is important, but the rapid changes raise questions about Korea’s commitment to attracting foreign investment. Nation branders no doubt want to project the image of Korea as a dynamic, open, “global” economy, but rules and regulations stand as hard evidence of what’s really going on.
Thus, for nation branding to succeed, the evidence in the street must match the words on the Web.