What has really changed in Korea?

In the press & "Outsider's Insight" 2007/01/30 14:51



What has really changed in Korea?

By Tariq Hussain

I am pleased to announce the release of the “Diamond Dilemma” in English . particularly since I can do it in this newspaper. After all, the English edition started to take shape following a 14-part series in The Korea Herald last year.

At the time, the reader response was overwhelmingly positive, with many expressing their gratitude that I had crystallized many of the challenges and apparent contradictions which they experienced in Korea, and then put them in the broader context of Korea’s economy and society. The positive reaction encouraged me to accelerate the publication in English, and also led to the launch of my monthly Outsider’s Insight column.

But let’s step back for a moment. When the Korean version of the “Diamond Dilemma” was launched in early 2006, I did not quite know what to expect. The title, I was told by my publisher, was awkward for a Korean audience . something along the lines of “Trash Korea” would be preferable. Yet what was most important to me was a balanced, objective view of Korea . one that would recognize the country’s enormous achievements, but also provide an honest assessment of its future prospects. And all in all, this is what Korean readers seemed to appreciate most about the book. The extensive coverage in the Korean media came as a positive surprise to me. Korea’s netizens, notorious for being demanding and potentially highly critical consumers and customers, generally found the book insightful and welcomed a fresh, honest perspective.

Much has happened in recent months, but what has really changed? In short, nothing that would run contrary to my basic thesis. Korea needs continued reform in order to reach its full potential and shine like a brilliant diamond. Economic performance has slowed down, with growth forecasts for 2007 lowered to below 5 percent. The country has slipped significantly in the global competitiveness ratings. Part of this may be due to the lame duck syndrome that befalls Korea toward the end of the term of any president. Yet most importantly, structural reforms have not been tackled. The government has increased its grip on the economy (most notably through additional regulations); governance issues in the corporate sector continue to be on display; and labor unions continue their annual strike rituals and resistance to changes in the labor market.

There has been some positive news. The pursuit of free trade agreements is generally to be welcomed, although clearly not a panacea for Korea’s economic woes. In the corporate sector, Sam-sung has pledged ongoing reforms.

Koreans are tired of their current government, and keen on putting a new leader in place. Yet who should take charge of Korea at this important time? Rather than recommending any of the presidential candidates, I lay out Korea’s leadership challenge in the final chapter of the book . and the qualities required of its future leaders. Whether the country’s next president will meet those requirements will be a good indicator of whether Korea will choose the path to brilliance and achieve its full potential.

Tariq Hussain writes the monthly Outsider’s Insight column for The Korea Herald. . Ed.

image(0) image (0)
What has really changed in Korea?
TRACKBACK 1700 AND COMMENT 7