Chapter I Introduction --- 1 1.1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/78753 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Historical Blocs, Organic Crises, and Inter-Korean Relations Choi, Yong Sub A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics and International Studies Department of Politics and International Studies, The University of Warwick March 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES --- iv LIST OF FIGURES --- v ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS --- vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --- viii DECLARATION --- ix NOTES --- x ABSTRACT --- xi Chapter I Introduction --- 1 1.1. Introduction --- 1 1.2. Literature Review on Theories of Inter-Korean Relations --- 4 1.3. Theoretical Framework --- 20 1.3.1. Key concepts for Gramscian understanding of international relations --- 25 1.3.2. Gramsci’s notion of international relations --- 37 1.3.3. A Gramscian method for foreign policy analysis --- 47 1.4. The Structure of the Thesis --- 51 PART I. Existing Historical Blocs of the Two Koreas --- 54 Chapter II. Existing Historical Bloc and the Hegemonic Group of the South --- 54 2.1. Economic Structure: Exportist Fordism as Determinant --- 54 2.2. Ideology: Anti-Communism --- 68 2.3. The State and Civil Society --- 75 2.3.1. Form of state: the developmental state --- 75 2.3.2. Civil society --- 81 2.4. Conclusion: Who was the Hegemonic Group? --- 84 Chapter III. Historical Bloc and the Hegemonic Group of the North --- 87 3.1. Economic Structure: Autarkist Soviet Fordism as Determinant --- 87 i 3.2. Ideology: Juche Ideology --- 109 3.3. The State and Civil Society --- 117 3.3.1. Form of state: the Stalinist state --- 118 3.3.2. Civil society? --- 125 3.4. Conclusion: Who was the Hegemonic Group? --- 128 PART II. Organic Crises of South and North Korea --- 130 Chapter IV. Organic Crisis of South Korea --- 130 4.1. Liberalisation in the 1980s --- 132 4.2. Development of the Economic Crisis --- 137 4.3. New Ruling Political Group and Neoliberal Reforms --- 144 4.4. Consequences of Chaebol-friendly Neoliberal Reforms --- 152 4.5. Conclusion: Changes in the Historical Bloc --- 156 Chapter V. Organic Crisis of North Korea --- 161 5.1. Development of the Economic Crisis --- 162 5.2. Marketisation and Weakening of the Party --- 166 5.3. Pyongyang's Countermeasures --- 171 5.3.1 Silli socialism --- 174 5.3.2. Seongun politics --- 179 5.4. Conclusion: Changes in the Historical Bloc --- 184 Part III. Inter-Korean Reconciliation as Hegemonic Projects --- 188 Chapter VI. Reconciliation with North Korea --- 188 6.1. North Korean Policy before 1998 --- 189 6.2. New Ruling Political Group – Liberal Nationalists --- 203 6.3. Inter-Korean Reconciliation as a Hegemonic Project --- 218 6.4. Consequences of Inter-Korean Reconciliation on Hegemonic Struggles --- 228 6.5. Conclusion --- 235 Chapter VII. Reconciliation with South Korea --- 238 ii 7.1. South Korean Policy in the Kim Il-sung Era --- 239 7.2. Inter-Korean Reconciliation as a Hegemonic Project --- 249 7.3. Consequences of Inter-Korean Reconciliation on Hegemonic Struggles --- 258 7.4. Conclusion --- 261 Chapter VIII. Conclusion --- 264 8.1. Summary: Main Arguments and Empirical Findings --- 264 8.2. Empirical Implications of the Study --- 271 8.3. Theoretical Implications of the Study --- 281 8.4. Future Research --- 291 BIBLIOGRAPHY --- 294 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Change in the commodity export ratio in South Korea --- 65 Table 2. Change in nominal and real wages and labour productivity in South Korea --- 65 Table 3. The ratio of investment between heavy and light industries in North Korea, 1954- 1976 --- 98 Table 4. The ratio of defence spending to gross national product, 1955-1973 --- 100 Table 5. Economic Growth Rates of North Korea, 1953-1990 --- 104 Table 6. GDP growth rates of South Korea in the 1980s --- 134 Table 7. Changes in foreign debt from 1994 to September 1997 --- 143 Table 8. Changes in GDP and real wage increase rate from 1997 to 2002 --- 154 Table 9. Gini coefficient of income and deciles distribution ratio between 1997 and 2002 --- 155 Table 10. Difference between state-regulated prices and farmers’ markets prices in 1998 --- 167 Table 11. Changes in commodity prices and wages after the July 1 --- 176 Table 12. Changes in the economic growth rate in North Korea --- 179 Table 13. Changes in inter-Korean trade volume from North Korea’s perspective from 1995 to 2002 --- 256 Table 14. Changes in humanitarian aid volume from 1995 to 2002 --- 256 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Constituents of a historical bloc --- 31 Figure 2: Production organization of North Korean factories --- 106 v ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AD Administration Department ANSP Agency for National Security Planning APPC Asia-Pacific Peace Committee BOK Bank of Korea CIA Central Intelligence Agency CPC Central People's Committee DLF Development Loan Fund DP Democratic Party EPB Economic Planning Board FKI Federation of Korean Industries FKTU Federation of Korean Trade Unions FSC Financial Supervisory Commission GNP Grand National Party GNP Gross National Product GDP Growth Domestic Production ISI Import Substitution Industrialization IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IR International Relations KCIA Korean Central Intelligence Agency KDP Korea Democratic Party KBA Korean Businessmen's Association KCTU Korean Confederation of Trade Unions vi KEPCO Korean Electric Power Corporation KWP Korean Workers' Party MDP Millennium Democratic Party MOFE Ministry of Finance and Economy NCNP National Congress for New Politics NDC National Defense Commission NDP New Democratic Party NIS National Intelligence Service NIF National Investment Fund NL National Liberation NDC National Defense Commission NDP New Democratic Party NPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty NSL National Security Law OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ODA Overseas Development Assistant OGD Organization and Guidance Department PD People's Democracy SAC State Administrative Council SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises UDP United Democratic Party ULD United Liberal Democrats USAMGIK United States Army Military Government in Korea vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been finished without so much support from many people around me in the process of my research. First and foremost, I would like to thank to my supervisor, Professor Iain Pirie, who gave me insightful advice and warm-hearted encouragement in every aspect of this research. I am truly grateful for his kind and accommodative supervision which helped me make clear the necessary steps toward the completion of my thesis. I would also like to extend my appreciation to my former supervisor, Professor Hazel Smith, for her detailed and considerate guidance at the initial stages of my research. I owe much to the scholars at my previous academic institutions too, notably Professor Lee Chung Min, Professor MOON Chung-in, Professor Mo Jongryn, Professor Lee Jung-Hoon, Professor Choi Wan-kyu, Professor Ryoo Kihl-jae, Professor Hamm Taik-young, Professor Koo Kab-Woo, and Professor Yang Moon Soo for their knowledge in their chosen field and kindness extended to me. I am also grateful to my thesis examiners, Professor Peter Ferdinand and Professor Kevin Gray, who helped me to more deeply ponder related issues and better revise my work. My acknowledgements also go to my friends and fellow students at the University of Warwick. My PhD research life was academically stimulating and socially joyful thanks to the people around me, notably Choi Seoryeon, Kazunari Morii, Tok Sow Keat, Song Junmin, Sung Kiyoung, Moon Kyung Yon, Kim Jiyoung, Park Jinsoo, Xiaochen Ni, Melody Goh, and Jane Kim, to name a few. Last but certainly not the least, I must express heartfelt thanks and gratitude to my family who has helped me to continue this long journey of my doctoral research. In particular, I really appreciate my mother for her constant encouragement. She has always given me her unreserved support. viii DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work of research. In preparing this thesis, I followed the guidelines established in the Guide to Examinations for Higher Degrees by Research of the University of Warwick. This thesis has not been submitted for a degree at any other university. Choi, Yong Sub ix NOTES In romanising Korean terms, this thesis follows the Revised Romanisation of Korean system. In the case of the names of Korean individuals, this thesis writes the surname first in line with Korean common usage. x ABSTRACT Applying a Gramscian approach, this thesis explores the relationship between hegemonic struggles in South and North Korea and the inter-Korean reconciliation from 1998 to 2002 and it argues that the reconciliation was pursued as hegemonic projects by the ruling political groups of the two Koreas. In South Korea, the 1997 economic crisis was an organic crisis that Chaebol- friendly exportist Fordism in the early stages of neoliberalisation yielded. The crisis caused counter-hegemonic liberal nationalists to attain political power. The new North Korean policy was a ‘national-popular’ programme that pursued nationalism, a counterforce to anti-Communism with which the hegemonic group exercised ideological leadership. Seoul’s rhetoric was to enhance peace on the peninsula but, in reality, the reconciliation process was undertaken at the price of tolerating the North’s armed provocations and nuclear and missile development. The ruling political group clung to repairing inter-Korean relations because it was a project to obtain hegemony from the hands of the hegemonic group. In the case of North Korea, the new South Korean policy had a ‘national-popular’ outlook of nationalism but, in practice, it aimed to obtain economic benefits to preserve hegemony.