How will the Economic Policies of South Korea’s New Administration Influence Economic Relations with Japan? By Hidehiko Mukoyama Senior Economist Economics Department Japan Research Institute Summary 1. The presidential election held in South Korea in December 2012 was essentially a two-horse race between Park Geun-hye of the incumbent conservative Saenuri Party and Moon Jae-in from the progressive Democratic United Party, which was in opposition. A feature of the election that attracted intense interest was the fact that both candidates called for economic democratization and the enhancement of the welfare system because of their concern about the failure of the traditional pattern of growth led by the chaebol groups to contribute sufficiently to the improvement of living standards in South Korea. 2. Characteristics of the South Korean growth model that evolved during the first decade of the 21st century include global business expansion led by the chaebol groups, active government support for big business, and export-led growth. How- ever, while exports have been a growth driver, there have also been issues, such as employment problems and job insecurity for young people, and widening income disparity. In addition, deregulatory measures carried out by the Lee Myung-bak ad- ministration have had the effect of concentrating economic power in the hands of the chaebol, while small and medium enterprises have come under pressure from the ex- panding business activities of the chaebol. 3. Mr. Moon stated that he wanted to resurrect the equity investment ceiling system, which was abolished by the Lee Myung-bak administration, and announced a policy calling for the dissolution of cyclical investments within three years. In contrast, Ms. Park limited her policy stance to the prohibition of new cyclical investments and an- nounced her intention to achieve economic democratization by taking steps to pro- tect shopping precincts and small businesses and ensure that major corporations deal fairly with small and medium businesses. 4. One of the reasons for the election victory that resulted in Ms. Park becoming the next president of South Korea was the fact that her policies were seen as more realistic. Given the South Korean public’s expectations toward economic democra- tization, the Park administration will need to make rapid progress towards this goal while maintaining a balanced approach that also includes stimulatory measures and policies to address the declining birth rate and demographic aging. 5. The new administration needs to pursue economic democratization, but the de- velopment of and support for small and medium enterprises will also be a priority. If the next stratum of businesses below major corporations can be expanded, the benefits are likely to include (1) an easing of the job-seeking environment for young people, (2) an influx of skilled people into small and medium-sized businesses, lead- ing to improvements in their technical capabilities, (3) the prevention of the concen- tration of economic power into the hands of the chaebol, and (4) a move away from excessive dependence on the chaebol for growth. 6. Statements by President Myung Lee-bak have led to deterioration in the rela- tionship between Japan and South Korea. The inauguration of new administrations in both countries is expected to provide an opportunity to move towards the normal- ization of relations. The past few years have also brought new developments on the economic front, and it is possible that the relationship will become even closer. If the governments of Japan and South Korea can rediscover their countries’ importance to each other as mutual economic partners, the economic relationship can be expected to move to the next level. 2 RIM Pacific Business and Industries Vol. XIII, 2013 No. 47 Introduction growth record in terms of both achievements and problems. In Part 2 we will analyze the factors South Korea’s presidential election on Decem- that have made economic democratization such a ber 19, 2012 attracted interest for two reasons. contentious issue. In Part 3 we will consider the First, the election became essentially a two-person economic policies that the Park administration is race between Park Geun-hye of the conservative likely to follow. In Part 4 we will look at the out- ruling Saenuri Party and Moon Jae-in of the pro- look for economic relations between Japan and gressive opposition Democratic United Party. Sec- South Korea. ond, both candidates called for “economic democ- ratization” and the improvement of welfare, albeit through different policies, on the grounds that the 1. Pressure for Change in the traditional pattern of growth led by the Chaebol South Korean Growth Model conglomerates had not contributed sufficiently to the improvement of living standards for the South Korean people. The intense interest in the election (1) The South Korean Growth Model was reflected in a high voter turnout of 75.8%. Ms. Park was elected and will be inaugurated The author has previously analyzed South Ko- on February 25, 2013 as South Korea’s next presi- rea’s achievements and problems in relation to dent. Her victory can be attributed to three factors. economic globalization(1). Discussion of this as- First, she was able to consolidate the conservative pect here will therefore be limited to the scope re- vote by aligning two leading politicians, Lee Hoi- quired for the following analysis. chang and Lee In-Jae with the Saenuri (New Fron- Features of the economic growth pattern that tier) Party. Second, while distancing herself from has evolved in South Korea in the 21st century, President Lee, she worked to change the image of which we will refer to as the “South Korean the ruling party, which changed its name from the growth model,” include (1) global business expan- Hannara-dang (Grand National Party) in February sion by the chaebol business groups, (2) active 2012. Third, her stance toward the reform of the government support for the chaebol, and (3) ex- conglomerates and her policy toward North Korea port-led growth. Factors linked to the accelerated were more realistic than those of Mr. Moon. globalization efforts of the chaebol groups include Public expectations toward the new president a sharp decline in domestic demand after the cur- are high, but South Korea also faces many eco- rency crisis, the prospect of shrinking domestic nomic issues. Policy management is likely to be markets because of a plummeting birthrate and a difficult process for the next administration. On rapid demographic aging, and the creation of busi- the economic front, the government will need to ness opportunities through the sustained growth take a balanced approach to stimulatory measures, of the emerging economies. Government support economic democratization, and policies relating to for the globalization efforts of the chaebol groups a falling birthrate and demographic aging. has included cuts in the corporate tax rate and the Currently, a transitional committee chaired by maintenance of low power prices. The government Kim Yong-joon is gathering operational reports has also worked actively to sign free trade agree- from government ministries and agencies and ments (FTAs). After the Lee Myung-bak adminis- making preparations for the establishment of poli- tration took office in 2008, it cut the corporate tax cy guidelines for the new administration. rate from 25% to 22%, which is one of the lowest In this article we will examine the economic rates in any major country (Fig. 1). policies that the Park administration is likely to South Korea has started to function as an FTA implement and examine the outlook for econom- hub, as indicated by the fact that an FTA with the ic relations between Japan and South Korea. In European Union (EU) became provisionally effec- Part 1 we will examine South Korea’s economic tive on July 1, 2011, and an FTA with the United RIM Pacific Business and Industries Vol. XIII, 2013 No. 47 3 Fig. 1 Effective Corporate Tax Rates （％） Before fiscal After fiscal 45 2011 reforms 2011 reforms 40.69％ ⇒ 35.64％ 40.75％ 40 8.84 35 12.80 33.33％ 29.48％ 30 11.93 25.00％ 25 24.20％ 24.00％ 13.65 2.20 20 17.00％ 31.91 33.33 15 27.89 23.71 25.00 24.00 10 22.00 15.83 17.00 5 0 Japan United States France Germany China South Korea U.K. Singapore (Tokyo Metropolitan Area) (California) (National average) (Seoul) Corporate tax rate: 30% Corporate tax rate: 25.5% Business tax rate: 3.26% Business tax rate: 3.26% Federal corporate Corporate tax rate: 15% Corporate Special local corporate rate: Special local corporate rate: Federal Corporate tax rate: 22% Corporate Corporate tax rate: 35% corporate Solidarity surcharge: Business tax × 148% Business tax × 148% State corporate 5.5% of corporate tax tax rate: 25% Local income tax: tax rate: 24% tax rate: 17% tax rate: 331 3% Residential tax: Residential tax: tax rate: 8.84% Trade tax: 13.65% Corporate tax × 10% Corporate tax × 20.7% Corporate tax × 20.7% National tax Local tax Source: Ministry of Finance Table 1 South Korea’s Moves to Establish FTAs 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Signed or agreed Chile Effective April 1 Singapore Effective March 2 EFTA Effective Sept. 1 ASEAN (goods) Effective June 1 ASEAN (services) Effective May 1 India Effective Jan. 1 Provisionally EU effective July 1 Peru Effective Aug. 1 U.S.A. Effective March 15 Colombia Agreed June 25 Turkey Signed Aug. 1 Under negotiation Canada Started in July Mexico Started in Feb. Suspended Japan Started in Dec. since Nov. GCC Started in July Australia Started in May New Zealand Started in June China Started in May Vietnam Started in Aug. Source: Nippon no Keizai Renkei Kyotei (EPA) Kosho [Japan’s EPA Negotiations], Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (October 2009), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ROK, etc.