Most Popular
-
1
Actor Jung Woo-sung admits to being father of model Moon Ga-bi’s child
-
2
Wealthy parents ditch Korean passports to get kids into international school
-
3
Man convicted after binge eating to avoid military service
-
4
First snow to fall in Seoul on Wednesday
-
5
Final push to forge UN treaty on plastic pollution set to begin in Busan
-
6
Korea to hold own memorial for forced labor victims, boycotting Japan’s
-
7
Nvidia CEO signals Samsung’s imminent shipment of AI chips
-
8
Industry experts predicts tough choices as NewJeans' ultimatum nears
-
9
Job creation lowest on record among under-30s
-
10
Opposition chief acquitted of instigating perjury
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s “Why Nations Fail” argues that the reason nations fail or succeed rides on political and economic institutions.
According to the book, there are two types of institutions -- “extractive” institutions and “inclusive” institutions. The first is one where group of individuals exploit systematically the rest of the population for their own private interests. The second is one where many people are included in the process of governing and this results in economic institutions that encourage innovation and investment.
Using historical sources, the authors, Acemoglu and Robinson, go on to explain in detail how political institutions consequently develop corresponding economic institutions and why nations have to build inclusive institutions to continue growth.
They also argue -- citing South Korea as a successful example -- that some countries managed to break out of this vicious circle of exclusive political and economic institutions into a virtuous circle of relatively inclusive institutions. But disappointingly, recent political events in Korea show clearly that the reality is different from the ideal expectation.
In the 1960s and 1970s, an authoritarian political system contributed greatly to South Korea becoming a developing country.
However, after a new civilian government was established in 1993, governmental power has wielded strong influence over the private sectors, which include economic institutions. And such a concentration of power in the hands of so few people has blocked various social groups’ interests from being heard in the policymaking process.
In other words, the society that experienced prosperity under extractive institutions did not fully recognize the need to identify the ways in which different categories of actors are empowered to interact with various features of institutional rules.
The depoliticization of the development narrative has pushed issues of inequality and justice to the periphery of Korean society. Therefore, the latest political scandal involving the president’s confidante Choi Soon-sil and chaebol is not surprising.
Nowadays we live in a more insecure environment in which international capital and the development of technology has turned the global labor market into a pool of temporary employees to be hired and dismissed at will.
Moreover, as seen through the refugee problem, the global society is becoming so harsh that we cannot but choose to doubt the presence of ethics in international relations.
Given such realities, now is the time to ask fundamental questions concerning a more mature and developed society. What is true democracy? What does “a developed society” mean to each and every one of us as a member of society? What institutions should we build and implement to guarantee the full operation of democracy? How can the strategies for development keep pace with social justice?
In the midst of winter, in this period of social turmoil, I often look at the sunlight reflected on a white snowy street, which reminds me of Camille Pissarro’s paintings in which the sun radiates across a rural landscape.
He employed beautiful combinations of light and color to communicate his world view and belief system. Focusing his work primarily on peasants and their daily lives, he sought to portray them as dignified. To craft an anti-authoritarian society in which everyone is more equal, he placed more weight on the creation of democratized systems than on the destruction of old unjust systems.
Korean society is clearly at a crossroads. Now we have to consider the direction of development, not just the development goal.
Constructive suggestions as well as criticism should be made to serve as building blocks for a mature society. In addition, legislative and institutional procedures should also be designed for the implementation of the proposals. Even though this is a time of change and of pain, our new efforts will manifest themselves in every aspect of society before long.
By Bae Su-kyeong
Bae Su-kyeong is a freelance journalist. She can be reached at baula77@naver.com. -- Ed.
According to the book, there are two types of institutions -- “extractive” institutions and “inclusive” institutions. The first is one where group of individuals exploit systematically the rest of the population for their own private interests. The second is one where many people are included in the process of governing and this results in economic institutions that encourage innovation and investment.
Using historical sources, the authors, Acemoglu and Robinson, go on to explain in detail how political institutions consequently develop corresponding economic institutions and why nations have to build inclusive institutions to continue growth.
They also argue -- citing South Korea as a successful example -- that some countries managed to break out of this vicious circle of exclusive political and economic institutions into a virtuous circle of relatively inclusive institutions. But disappointingly, recent political events in Korea show clearly that the reality is different from the ideal expectation.
In the 1960s and 1970s, an authoritarian political system contributed greatly to South Korea becoming a developing country.
However, after a new civilian government was established in 1993, governmental power has wielded strong influence over the private sectors, which include economic institutions. And such a concentration of power in the hands of so few people has blocked various social groups’ interests from being heard in the policymaking process.
In other words, the society that experienced prosperity under extractive institutions did not fully recognize the need to identify the ways in which different categories of actors are empowered to interact with various features of institutional rules.
The depoliticization of the development narrative has pushed issues of inequality and justice to the periphery of Korean society. Therefore, the latest political scandal involving the president’s confidante Choi Soon-sil and chaebol is not surprising.
Nowadays we live in a more insecure environment in which international capital and the development of technology has turned the global labor market into a pool of temporary employees to be hired and dismissed at will.
Moreover, as seen through the refugee problem, the global society is becoming so harsh that we cannot but choose to doubt the presence of ethics in international relations.
Given such realities, now is the time to ask fundamental questions concerning a more mature and developed society. What is true democracy? What does “a developed society” mean to each and every one of us as a member of society? What institutions should we build and implement to guarantee the full operation of democracy? How can the strategies for development keep pace with social justice?
In the midst of winter, in this period of social turmoil, I often look at the sunlight reflected on a white snowy street, which reminds me of Camille Pissarro’s paintings in which the sun radiates across a rural landscape.
He employed beautiful combinations of light and color to communicate his world view and belief system. Focusing his work primarily on peasants and their daily lives, he sought to portray them as dignified. To craft an anti-authoritarian society in which everyone is more equal, he placed more weight on the creation of democratized systems than on the destruction of old unjust systems.
Korean society is clearly at a crossroads. Now we have to consider the direction of development, not just the development goal.
Constructive suggestions as well as criticism should be made to serve as building blocks for a mature society. In addition, legislative and institutional procedures should also be designed for the implementation of the proposals. Even though this is a time of change and of pain, our new efforts will manifest themselves in every aspect of society before long.
By Bae Su-kyeong
Bae Su-kyeong is a freelance journalist. She can be reached at baula77@naver.com. -- Ed.
-
Articles by Korea Herald
