TY - JOUR
T1 - East Asian Varieties of Capitalism and Socio-Economic Inequality
T2 - South Korea and Hong Kong Compared
AU - Chu, Yin-Wah
AU - Kong, Tat Yan
N1 - Funding Information:
Tat Yan Kong was supported by Academy of Korean Studies grant AKS-2019-R65 in the writing of this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2024/1/1
Y1 - 2024/1/1
N2 - This article examines the deepening of socio-economic inequality manifested as dualisation in South Korea and deregulation in Hong Kong. It explains the extreme manifestations of inequality by reference to the nature of economic co-ordination, organised labour power and societal corporatism, and the politics of democratisation. It finds that South Korea’s legacy of state-orchestrated co-ordinated market economy favoured the retention of a manufacturing core despite globalisation. However, the neo-liberal inclinations of the state and big business groups led to the marginalisation of less privileged firms and workers. These inclinations reinforced the defensiveness of the small but strong labour organisations, preventing effective societal corporatism. These phenomena are fully understandable only with reference to the country’s conservative democratisation that divided the liberal and left political forces. The geo-political legacy also induced identity conflicts that overshadowed socio-economic issues. By contrast, Hong Kong’s liberal market economy coupled with the absence of security concern had allowed a radical de-industrialisation in the 1990s and wholesale casualisation in the 2000s. Divided by identity politics, organised labour was unable to challenge the trend. The same conflicts also led pro-China labour organisations to side with business interests in the post-1997 electoral autocracy and prevented the introduction of more fundamental reforms.
AB - This article examines the deepening of socio-economic inequality manifested as dualisation in South Korea and deregulation in Hong Kong. It explains the extreme manifestations of inequality by reference to the nature of economic co-ordination, organised labour power and societal corporatism, and the politics of democratisation. It finds that South Korea’s legacy of state-orchestrated co-ordinated market economy favoured the retention of a manufacturing core despite globalisation. However, the neo-liberal inclinations of the state and big business groups led to the marginalisation of less privileged firms and workers. These inclinations reinforced the defensiveness of the small but strong labour organisations, preventing effective societal corporatism. These phenomena are fully understandable only with reference to the country’s conservative democratisation that divided the liberal and left political forces. The geo-political legacy also induced identity conflicts that overshadowed socio-economic issues. By contrast, Hong Kong’s liberal market economy coupled with the absence of security concern had allowed a radical de-industrialisation in the 1990s and wholesale casualisation in the 2000s. Divided by identity politics, organised labour was unable to challenge the trend. The same conflicts also led pro-China labour organisations to side with business interests in the post-1997 electoral autocracy and prevented the introduction of more fundamental reforms.
KW - Hong Kong
KW - South Korea
KW - socio-economic inequality
KW - varieties of capitalism
KW - Dualisation
KW - neo-liberalism
UR - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/jca/2024/00000054/00000001/art00005
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136500780&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00472336.2022.2105738
DO - 10.1080/00472336.2022.2105738
M3 - Journal article
SN - 0047-2336
VL - 54
SP - 61
EP - 89
JO - Journal of Contemporary Asia
JF - Journal of Contemporary Asia
IS - 1
ER -