In Conversation: Ramon Pacheco Pardo on 'Shrimp to Whale: South Korea from the Forgotten War to K-Pop'

IN CONVERSATION WITH RAMON PACHECO PARDO

6 July 2022

9DASHLINE recently engaged in a wide-ranging conversation with Dr Ramon Pacheco Pardo about his fascinating new book ‘Shrimp to Whale: South Korea from the Forgotten War to K-Pop’, which charts the incredible rise of South Korea, from colonisation and civil war to the thriving nation it is today.

Your book title describes South Korea’s transformation from a ‘shrimp’ to a ‘whale’ — what does this metaphor mean?

RP: In Korea, there is a popular saying: “when whales fight, the shrimp’s back breaks”. Koreans have long seen themselves as this proverbial ‘shrimp’ at the mercy of bigger ‘whales’ — whether this is past ‘whales’, like China and Japan, or today’s ‘whales’, like China and the US. Indeed, many South Koreans still believe that their country is unable to make its own political, economic, and security decisions independently of the decisions of stronger powers.

In contrast, one of the key arguments in my book is that South Korea cannot be seen as a ‘shrimp’ anymore — certainly not when placed in a global context. It is the 10th largest economy in the world, one of the strongest democracies worldwide, and a top-ten military power. Plus, it is a technological and cultural powerhouse. In other words, the South Korea of today is closer to the ‘whales’ than it is to the ‘shrimps’.

The subtitle of the book is meant to encapsulate this change: ‘South Korea from the Forgotten War to K-Pop’. Many people outside of South Korea still call the Korean War ‘the Forgotten War’ because it received little international attention, coming between World War II (and the start of the Cold War) and the Vietnam War. This phrase seems to encapsulate how (South) Korea was seen in the past: largely unknown compared to its bigger neighbours.

In a vastly different way, today K-Pop is inescapable and some of the best-known artists across the world are South Korean. Hallyu (‘Korean Wave’) has spread everywhere and South Korea is known as a ‘cool’ and modern country. This is an incredible change that in my view encapsulates the idea of South Korea having transformed into a ‘whale’ in its own right.

In the 1960s, South Korea was an impoverished, underdeveloped, and largely agrarian country with a high proportion of uneducated people in the population. Additionally, it was also dependent on US financial aid. Today, the country is among the most developed economies in the world. How did South Korea manage this transition in a relatively short period?

RP: The traditional account of South Korea’s development is that enlightened politicians and business leaders benefitted from an influx of foreign capital and expertise, as well as the US market’s openness to transform the country’s economy from poor to rich. There is certainly an element of truth in that, which I describe and analyse in my book.

However, dozens of other countries also had access to foreign support and the US market. Yet, except for a handful of other countries in East Asia and Southern Europe, none of them achieved the same rapid development as South Korea. This is why, in my view, South Korea’s successful economic development is mainly the result of domestic factors. These include the foresight of political leaders (such as Park Chung-hee), business leaders commanding the chaebol, and government bureaucrats toiling in their offices.

I also think that the drive of South Korean workers was an equally important factor, including how they strived to improve their educational prospects, worked hard for long hours, and, crucially, fought the government to improve their working conditions. Without such a highly skilled workforce, South Korea would not be where it is today. And without workers pushing to improve their conditions, South Korea would not have become developed with relatively low levels of income inequality at the same time.

In 1999, the liberal government allowed eleven of the thirty biggest chaebol to go bankrupt. How much does the friction between a free market and the chaebol system still affect South Korean economics and society?

RP: This is crucial for understanding contemporary South Korea. Many South Koreans feel that the domestic economy is dominated by the chaebol to a dangerous degree, preventing smaller firms from gaining a foothold in the domestic market. Thus, South Korean presidential candidates of all kinds have been promising chaebol reform since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997. This applies to both liberals and conservatives. And yet, no president has really sought to overhaul the chaebol system. In fact, governments dating back to the Kim Dae-jung era have sought to foster start-up-chaebol cooperation, and countless South Koreans continue to dream about working in a chaebol such as Samsung, Hyundai, and SK, which are among the most innovative firms in the world.

So, there seems to be a love-hate relationship that at least some South Koreans have with the chaebol. Having said that, South Korean governments dating back decades understand that a truly free market does not exist. Therefore, they have tried to shape the market together with the private sector — what scholars call the ‘Developmental State’. With growing talk of industrial policy across Europe and the US, and with several South Korean chaebol being courted by Western governments, it seems that this model followed by South Korea and other East Asian countries is now becoming more popular. In a sense, the free market-chaebol contradiction seems not to exist in the eyes of foreign governments.

The year 2002 was interesting for South Korea’s role in the international community, from hosting the FIFA World Cup to the anti-American protests that swept the country. Since then, what role has South Korea tried to carve out as part of the international community, and how is this still evolving, particularly in light of the criticism Seoul has received for not strongly backing sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine?

RP: South Korean presidents dating back to Park Chung-hee, if not earlier, have had a clear goal in mind: for the country to have an autonomous and independent foreign policy, free from foreign interference. This does not mean walking away from the ROK-US alliance or refusing to work with South Korea’s partners. However, it does imply that South Korea wants to make its own choices about how to engage with the US and other countries, instead of being told what its role should be.

For younger South Koreans, the 2002 World Cup was what the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games were to their parents’ generation: a coming-out party in which South Korea showed that it could host one of the biggest international events in the world and present itself as a modern, well-organised country. And of course, the South Korean national team got all the way to the semi-finals, making it a sporting success as well. In my opinion, this boosted the confidence of South Koreans and of South Korea as a country. This includes South Korea having a clearer view of its role in global affairs.

The case of South Korea’s response to the invasion of Ukraine is instructive in this sense. If we look at Asia, only Japan has been as robust as South Korea in its response to the crisis. If we move to the global level, few countries outside of Europe and the US have really taken a firm stance on Russia’s actions and supported the sanctions on Moscow. In my view, this shows Seoul’s confidence in its role and position in global affairs. In the past, South Korea would have been reluctant to take such a firm stance against a strong military and economic power. However, this is no longer the case.

You mention the recent success of many South Korean artistic media outputs in the West — from K-Pop to the Oscar-winning film, Parasite. What is the significance of this kind of success for South Korea’s soft power in the West?

RP: I think it is useful to look at the spread of Hallyu in other parts of the world to understand what may happen in the West, since North America and especially Europe have been behind the curve here. Perceptions of South Korea have improved in regions such as Southeast and South Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. South Korean goods, such as cars, electronics, beauty products, and food, have increased their sales many-fold. Furthermore, countries in the region now see Seoul as a potential foreign policy partner, which was not the case in the past. To a certain extent, this is the result of South Korea’s growing soft power.

We are now seeing similar developments in the West. In particular, younger Americans and Europeans have a very different perception of South Korea compared to previous generations. To begin with, they actually know quite a bit about the country and many have an interest in learning Korean. More generally, South Korean brands now command a premium that did not exist in the past, when South Korea was better known for producing cheap toys, clothes, TV sets, and cars. In addition, European countries and organisations including the EU and NATO today see South Korea as one of their crucial partners beyond the US. This is partly thanks to the country’s soft power.

What lessons might other developing countries draw from South Korea’s example?

RP: Probably, the biggest lesson that middle-sized developing countries can draw from South Korea’s example is the importance of the government and the private sector working together. If one of them becomes too dominant over the other, problems arise. The government may become too controlling and stifle innovation or firms may simply seek to make a quick profit — both of which are detrimental to long-term growth.

Another important lesson is the significance of developing strong domestic firms. Without Coupang, Kakao, LG, Hyundai, Naver, POSCO, Samsung, and SK, for example, the South Korean economy would be at the mercy of decisions taken by foreign firms and governments over which it has little control. Some of these firms may become multinationals, while others may not crack foreign markets. But all of them have to care about their home economy, and this is hugely beneficial for South Korea as a whole.

And one final important lesson is to think and dream big! The World Bank, foreign economists, and, it should be remembered, even several local experts had many doubts that South Korea would ever become an innovation-driven economy. But many political leaders, business people, entrepreneurs, and workers felt differently. Without them, South Korea would not be among the most advanced economies in areas such as semiconductors, AI, robotics, biotech, smart devices, and green shipping.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Biography

Ramon Pacheco Pardo is Professor of International Relations at King's College London and the KF-VUB Korea Chair at the Brussels School of Governance of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He is also King's Regional Envoy for East and South East Asia, Adjunct Fellow (Non-Resident) with the Korea Chair at CSIS, Non-Resident Fellow with Sejong Institute, and a Committee Member at CSCAP EU.

His latest book, ‘Shrimp to Whale: South Korea from the Forgotten War to K-Pop‘ is available here.