Political Crisis Engulfs Samsung, a Firm Tied to South Korea’s Success
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Presidents of South Korea have often justified their pardons of criminal CEOs by stressing the consequences for the economy. Fortunately, those excuses are less widely accepted than they used to be. Besides, it's not healthy for an economy to be heavily dependent on a small number of family-controlled firms, whether they are corrupt or not. It's true that enforcing the law against those companies may cause a short-term economic downturn, but in the long term, the economy will have a more sustainable foundation.
Incidentally, the Korean term for these large conglomerates, chaebol, is cognate with the Japanese term zaibatsu, which dominated the pre-WWII Japanese economy and shared many characteristics, including family control and political and financial corruption. Japan was better off when they were broken up. Despite appearances, the current Japanese conglomerates are better than the zaibatsu in important ways: they are rarely family-controlled, and they are less corrupt, more accountable to shareholders, and have much better corporate governance as a result.
Some reform of the economy, and less tolerance for corruption among the voters, are likely to be the best things that comes out of the impeachment of the current president.
> Presidents of South Korea have often justified their pardons of criminal CEOs by stressing the consequences for the economy. Fortunately, those excuses are less widely accepted than they used to be.
FWIW, similar justifications were brought out when HSBC was caught laundering drug-money, when LIBOR was found to be manipulated etc.
I'd suggest looking up the group behind the Anti-Corruption Act. They have some interesting ideas for solving corruption.
And this is reason, why Basic Income won't come easily. They (government, corporations) don't want people to have too much free time, to worry about theirs wrong-doing.
That's because of the nature of the business in Korea. To make it big in Korea you need to be successful OUTSIDE of Korea as well, the domestic market is too small. Japan's domestic market is quite large in itself and many domestic companies can rely on it to survive, which is very bad for such large corporations, who stay reluctant in competing overseas.
Most of the large Japanese conglomerates do not have any kind of central control, and the top companies in the group are relative equals. They are not heavily dependent on each other. If one of the companies were to exercise poor judgment, most of the rest of the companies in the group would be fine. In contrast, Samsung may be incorporated as multiple companies, but one family and its loyalists call the shots at every company within the group. If that small group of people were to exercise poor judgment, the entire Samsung group would suffer.
It therefore is entirely possible for Samsung to fail as an entire company, just as Daewoo did in the late 1990s due to poor decisions and criminal fraud committed by the family that controlled it. Just like Samsung, Daewoo was a group of companies that transacted in many industries, but that didn't matter because one family called the shots at every company within the group. Samsung could fail in the same way.
Furthermore, about 20% of South Korea's GDP is produced by Samsung. There is no comparable situation in Japan or most other developed economies.
I do not disagree with your statements with regards to Korea (they match my relatively untutored understanding), but I would not describe my understanding of Japanese megacorps as untutored, and I find myself in violent disagreement with this line.
What's your over/under on what percentage of Toyota Industries' revenue comes from Toyota Motors? What is your over/under for what portion of the shares outstanding of Toyota Industries that Toyota Motors owns outright, in its own name?
The control issues are... nuanced. The financial entanglements? They're not nuanced.
In 2011, Foxconn's revenue was 20% of Taiwan's GDP. Nokia's revenue was also 20% of Finland's GDP.
Precisely because the domestic market in Korea is small compared to Japan's or any other developed country. When you have a worldwide market leader industry coming from a small country, this situation is bound to happen.
EDIT: note that in other developed countries you see the exact same phenomenon at region/metropolis level - look how Detroit was dependent on the whole GMC business and factories. This is the very same thing at play at a different level.
If you remove their top three automobile companies and their top 3 Shosha firms (and maybe UFJ + Mizuho), they are not in good shape.
Every European country has it's handful of companies that have consolidated and by their supply chain drive a huge part of the economy.
(The Teaching Company produced a course called 'Explaining Social Deviance' which had a couple lectures specifically about white collar crime. That's where I learned about such things.)
His reply: "they do not influence the government. They are above the government."
Do you have any evidence for this? Most large companies are still very much in bed with the government in Japan.
Is it the "small number" part or the "family-controlled" part that's the issue?
Also, cabal.
A chaebol (/ˈtʃeɪbɒl/, Korean: 재벌, Korean: [tɕɛ̝bʌl]; from chae "wealth or property" + bol "faction or clan" – also written with the same Chinese characters 財閥 as Zaibatsu) is a South Korean form of business conglomerate.
Family run, too big to fail, rife with fraud and corruption etc.
Kind of like publishing in top journals is so prestigious and career-advancing for scientists. It makes creeps like Elsevier "above the market laws", virtually undisruptible (as well as fabulously rich). It's a deeply cultural thing, with glacial inertia, not a question of technology/funding!
On a similar note, after the AlphaGo commotion, Korean government allocated some $860M to "AI innovation". I may be too cynical, but it wouldn't surprise me if the money ended up in "friendly hands", the likes of Samsung.
Already some people are (somewhat jokingly) predicting that maybe his arrest would be a plus to Samsung...
That said, it was quite a bold move by prosecutors. Without the current scandal of president Park and puppetmaster Choi, I don't think they would have dared arrest Samsung's leader. (Well, the court may still say no to the arrest; we should wait and see.)
I think in 20 years, people will talk about pre and post Park Geun-hye Korea because the difference will be that important.
It's an even bigger deal in SK than either of those guys, where Samsung's role in the respective GDP is much higher.
compaign donations are tightly controlled in almost all the rest of the West.
Not that it isn't noble to strive for liberal democracy, but market based, liberal democracy in our case, has of late merely had the vestiges of a free market and democracy but is more and more like an oligarchy, not too unlike what we see here in SK.
Shell companies easily allow for "legal" circumvention of transparency.
Tying the two is nothing but a red herring.
Sure modern democracy and free market aren't free of problems, but Korea can use some Rule of Law.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/15/3991338/samsung-x-file-tap...
There is no contradiction between being a republic and a democracy unless one unreasonably restricts the definition of democracy to direct democracy. Reasonable definitions of democracy include representative democracy, which is practiced in many republics.
As we see, many republics face problems with all of the above. Including US. Technicalities such as non-majority presidents and strict bipartisan systems...
In certain countries like UK, where apparently ruling party was against the strict referendum results.
In Poland, where the ruling party is changing the judicial branch to their benefit.
Those are not third world banana republics.
Those two go hand-in-hand. One leads to the other and neither are good for the economy or the citizens as a whole.
Very few of the problems Korea is facing would be solved by a shift to "a true liberal democracy", whatever that means.
I recommend Jonathan Tepperman's book "The Fix" [1]. His chapter on Korea is, in my point of view, fair, forgiving and sympathetic towards Chaebol system.
He divides the development in Korea into three periods: Dictatorial development (which I think what you call cooperation b/w private enterprise and government) 1962~1987 and democratization 1987~1997 and liberalization 1997~. I think he presents a case of what would've worked in a cheap labor export economy wouldn't work well in a post-industrial advanced economy, and how the country should move on.
[1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/2016-09-20/fix-how-nati...
For example, in the 50s through the 70s, an important economic initiative was getting shoes for people. It both created jobs (making the shoes) and enabled people to get to work cheaply. Thus the gomusin was created.
It would be crazy today to have the same initiative in place. Times are different.
The <40 generations, who remember, at the earliest, leaving behind the military dictatorship and emergence as a fledgling democracy are far less tolerant of the excesses that the old system tolerated and want to raise expectations, bring about accountability, "deconfucionize" the national leadership (both political and industrial/commercial), and I think along with that further diversify the economy.
South Koreans are tremendously entrepreneurial, there are many many small businesses that are formed every year, and they operate in some ways in the shadows of the offerings from the major conglomerates. The government, for what it's worth, has been toying around with growing and promoting VC-like startups to help formalize the grow-and-sell approach. But there's still a tremendous disconnect and you find very few medium-sized, or even large businesses, as the conglomerates tend to either out-compete or buy up all of those companies.
From the normal person's perspective you find yourself trapped in a cycle of "making it big" and getting into a salary-man's life with a big firm (and all the downsides of that lifestyle), or doing similar jobs with less security and less pay for tiny companies. Many people don't want either choice, they want a third-way, even if they're having difficulty articulating this desire, and I think the country may be on the verge of this transformation into a more fully diversified economy.
Superficially it's hard for outsiders to see or understand this, since you can get all of the first-world fixings you would expect...except that they all seem to come from the same 4 or 5 companies and it keeps the economy perpetually trapped.
However, Korea's global position is precarious, cheaper manufacturing and goods are an hour flight away to the West (China), and higher-quality precision engineering is an hour flight away to the East (Japan). Korea has neither the money, or population to really directly compete with either and thus tries to use both the bulk of the conglomerates to act as economic gate crashers into global trade and then massive cultural subsidies and funding to push in awareness of Korean cultural properties and the network that comes with that (oh, so you like K-POP? you'll love Kimchi!). Politicians are rightly terrified of losing the relative power the conglomerates give the nation as powerful chess pieces.
The recent presidential crisis and the continuing revelations of how corrupt, and tied together the government and the conglomerates are has been a major revelation to millions of young Koreans. This crisis could become a watershed moment that could radically transform the entire political and economic landscape in the country. It's not clear at all what that could look like or if it would be beneficial for the country.
It's almost as if the western media is deliberately avoiding the scandal, lest anyone draw parallels to western corruption.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Korean_political_sc...
[2] https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=korea+protest&hl=en&tb...
I'm a damn lib, but a year or so ago, a fellow graduate student left to become a VP at JP Morgan (he's a well connected fellow). I was damn well tempted to follow him but I eventually decided against it.