How Germany’s “right to resist” is defending the country amid a rise in the far right

 Germany provides an interesting model for Korea with its coalition governments and social market economy that contribute to faith in leadership and social stabilityIn 2018, around 3,000 Germans rallied against the rise of the Alternative for Germany party in Goslar, Germany, carrying signs that said Goslar “respects diversity” and “is no place for racism.” (EPA/Yonhap) The city of Potsdam is located about 20 kilometers southwest of Berlin, Germany. It’s the capital of Brandenburg, one of Germany’s 16 states. It’s also the historic site of the Potsdam Conference, where the US, UK and Soviet Union discussed how to handle the end of World War II. Brandenburg has been in the spotlight in Germany after a recent opinion poll found that the far-right political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) enjoys a higher level of support in the state than either the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) or the Social Democratic Party (SPD). AfD candidates were recently elected as mayors of several towns in June and July, but the party has yet to win any statewide elections. The AfD has been rapidly expanding its base by catering to the political anxiety of residents of former East Germany. The Hankyoreh sat down with Martin Gorholt, the former undersecretary of Brandenburg’s Ministry for Science, Research and Culture, in Potsdam on Sept. 7. “The former area of East Germany is becoming the powder keg of conflict inside Germany. Far-right forces are exploiting the state of social anomie,” the former official remarked.Political cooperation through coalition governments The German academics, politicians, journalists and nonprofit activists whom the Hankyoreh spoke with are worried that the far right is threatening Germany’s stability, but they believe the far right can be defeated. That belief is grounded in a strong sense of confidence in Germany’s political and economic systems. Germany has been regarded as a model of political stability and economic development since World War II. The two secrets behind that success are political dialogue and compromise grounded in the parliamentary system and the “social market economy” that seeks to harmonize the free market and government intervention. Germany has seen a total of nine chancellors in the 74 years since the end of World War II. The eight chancellors prior to Olaf Scholz, the current officeholder, were in office for an average of nine years. That stands in contrast to Japan, which has had a total of 50 prime ministers over the same period with an average tenure of less than a year and a half.. That kind of political stability has been achieved through coalition governments, which require cooperation between various political forces. That’s what British journalist John Kampfner praised as the great triumph of liberal democracy in his book “Why the Germans Do It Better.” Coalition governments are essential in political systems in which none of the major parties are able to capture a majority of seats in parliament. On four separate occasions, Germany has even had “grand coalitions” between the CDU on the center right and the SPD on the center left. Coalition governments involving diverse political forces have given birth to a political culture of mutual respect, dialogue and compromise. Before a coalition government can be formed, the various parties must first draw up a lengthy coalition agreement. Carrying out the promises made to one’s coalition partners naturally lays the foundation for trust. “Drafting a coalition agreement is long and tedious, but I believe that process is what enables the agreement to be kept,” said Hannes B. Mosler, a professor at the University of Duisburg-Essen whose focus is in Korean politics.Social market economy, cornerstone of stability Germany is the world’s fourth-largest economy. While the “Miracle on the Rhine” was partially made possible by the US’ full-fledged support after the war, it would have been inconceivable without Germany’s unique model, known as the social market economy. The German model prioritizes social and communitarian values by taking advantage of the dynamism of the market economy while allowing the government to compensate for shortcomings in the market. Gerhard Bosch, a professor and senior fellow at the Heinrich Böll Foundation and an expert on labor issues and labor relations, spoke about the social market economy with obvious pride. “Germany’s greatest invention was building a social safety net for the public by linking the free market and the state,” he said. Two of the major achievements of the social market economy are the concepts of equal pay for equal work and collective decision-making. The first concept mandates that workers in the same industry receive the same pay for the same kind of work regardless of gender, age or rank. The second concept helped orchestrate cooperation between labor and management cooperation by giving workers a say in companies’ big decisions. With Germany projected to see negative economic growth this year, some are describing it as the “sick man of Europe,” but many see that as jumping to conclusions. Bosch offered the following take. “The German economy has a lot of issues, including inadequate investment in infrastructure and the digital sector. But it shouldn’t be treated as a ‘sick man’ because of a single year’s economic growth rate.” “While Korean exports are led by a handful of large corporations, Germany has a robust economy in which numerous small but strong companies account for 95% of our exports. Most of all, our welfare systems, including social insurance and pension programs [based on the social market economy], serve as the cornerstone of stability in Germany,” the professor emphasized.Political stability brings economic development Through political stability based on cooperation and coalition governments, Germany has succeeded at simultaneously achieving economic growth and harmony. It is the opinion of many people that political stability and economic development were also necessary for Germany’s reunification. “Germany is a good illustration of the fact that economic development is only possible when the political system is in order,” emphasized Park Jong-koo, the president of Chodang University. Given the routine nature of coalition governments, there is little chance that a change of government will lead to an abrupt change in government policy. “A stable political system in which power changes hands fairly and the rule of law is in effect is attractive to businesspeople and investors,” said Karl-Rudolf Korte, a professor of political science at the University of Duisburg-Essen. The energy sector is a good example of the consistency of German policy. Even amid the ongoing energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany shut down its last three nuclear power plants in April and has focused on expanding renewable energy and finding alternatives to Russian natural gas. “The fossil energy crisis, including the surging price of natural gas, demonstrates the need for faster expansion of renewables and the electrification of buildings and industry,” said Simon Müller of Agora Energiewende, a private German think tank focused on the energy sector. “Nuclear-related options [such as reversing the nuclear phase-out] are not being considered in this crisis situation not only because the [last] three remaining reactors were generating very little electricity, but also because new [nuclear plant] projects are very expensive and take a long time to build,” Müller said. “There was — and still is — a broad social consensus in Germany to switch from nuclear and coal power to cleaner forms of energy such as wind, solar and hydroelectricity, as well as renewable hydrogen,” the expert added. “Renewable energy will serve to protect German citizens and industries from future energy crises,” said Yeom Kwang-hee, a senior associate at Agora Energiewende.Respected German politicians When German broadcaster ZDF surveyed the public about the 100 greatest Germans in 2003, six of the people on the list were former chancellors. In first place was the first chancellor of West Germany, Konrad Adenauer, who is considered the father of the new Germany. Willy Brandt, who laid the groundwork for reunification with his Neue Ostpolitik, came in fifth, while Helmut Kohl, the chancellor who actually carried out the reunification, ranked 13th. Perhaps if the same survey were repeated, another selection would be Angela Merkel, Germany’s longest-serving chancellor (16 years) and a figure respected for her quiet leadership. South Koreans, whose trust in politicians is at rock bottom, can only look on in envy. The reason Germany’s political leaders are so respected is because of their outstanding leadership in honoring the public’s wishes and boldly pursuing the changes that the times demand, regardless of left/right bloc-based logic. “The Social Democratic Party has cooperated with the social market economy spearheaded by the Christian Democratic Union, and the CDU achieved reunification by carrying on the SPD’s Neue Ostpolitik,” explained scholar and Germany expert Kim Jong-in. German politicians have also led the way in reflecting fully on the crimes of the Nazis and in establishing a rock-solid democracy and education to ensure nothing like it happens again. In 1970, Brandt became the first West German chancellor to apologize for the Holocaust when he kneeled before a monument to the Jewish ghetto in the Polish capital Warsaw. Even today, this is remembered as a symbolic moment showing Germany’s sincere belief that its historical responsibilities had not ended. Hannes Mosler said, “Germany’s thorough apologies for its past and its efforts toward historical reckoning have been a foundation for stable political and social development and for the elimination of internal conflict.” “The recent debate about ‘historical regression’ in Korea shows that it has not achieved enough in terms of reckoning with the past and achieving social consensus,” he concluded.Defensive democracy While the rise of the far right in Germany can be attributed to a complex mix of factors, many analysts said economic ones have been especially large contributors, including the economic woes and livelihood difficulties caused by the energy crisis. “The increased economic difficulties associated with the arrival of Syrian refugees in 2015, the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and the Russo-Ukrainian War and energy crisis in 2022 have fueled the spread of far-right views,” commented Martin Gorholt. Even opposition to refugees is ultimately rooted in economic discontent: locals question why so many are admitted when they themselves are struggling financially. Between them, Syria and Ukraine have accounted for some 4 million refugees, amounting to 5% of the German population. Meanwhile, economic disparities between regions — a matter that has remained unresolved since reunification — have been another factor contributing to the former East Germany becoming a far-right stronghold. The AfD has expressed xenophobic and anti-Islamic views. Its members oppose the welcoming of refugees and reflection on history, repudiating Germany’s values and achievements to date — as with their calls for abandoning the euro. Analysts view their activities as falling on the boundary between constitutional and unconstitutional. In August, Thomas Haldenwang, the president of the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, delivered a public warning over the AfD’s far-right activities. The office is an intelligence agency that serves to protect the German republic and monitor extremist forces who threaten democracy and liberty. The established political parties in Germany on both the left and right do not see the far-right parties as viable coalition partners, given the threat they pose to the constitutional order. One reason behind this is the “defensive democracy” provision in the Basic Law, which serves as Germany’s constitution. Article 20(4) of the Basic Law states that all Germans “shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible.” This serves as a basis for limiting freedom of expression for those who threaten the democratic system and for banning unconstitutional parties and forms of association. For this reason, many Germans think it will be difficult for far-right forces to come to power. Die Zeit, one of Germany’s major newspapers, launched its “Germany Talks” project in 2017, showing the hopes and potential within German society. In response to the rapid rise of far-right parties and deepening social divisions ahead of the federal elections, the newspaper organized an event of one-on-one dialogue among people with different political views. “Germany Talks” has since been expanded into the “Europe Talks” format in 2018 and “The World Talks” in 2023. To date, around 290,000 people have taken part from 120 countries. “Through their encounters, people with different political views have come to understand each other and discover the possibilities for building trust,” explained Sebastian Horn, the deputy editor-in-chief for Zeit Online.Finding a Korean solution Antagonism and conflict have been deepening sharply in South Korean society since the arrival of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration. Political leaders have been accused of amplifying those divisions through constant attacks on critics and the use of wedge tactics rather than working toward social unity. More and more people are questioning whether communities can be sustained at the current rate. In 2021, the UN Conference on Trade and Development officially recognized South Korea as a “developed economy.” But what the German example shows is that sustainability requires political stability to proceed in tandem with economic development. This is why the Hankyoreh adopted “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence” as the theme for the 14th Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11 and selected the German model for closer examination. In his book “Why Nations Fail,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Daron Acemoglu observes that while the economic systems that determine a country’s wealth or poverty play a key role, politics and political systems determine what economic system a country has. Because every country has its own historical and social conditions, it is not possible to simply follow the German model. Koreans must find a solution that is right for us. “While it’s not the case that Germany’s political stability was achieved entirely through cooperative governance based on the parliamentary government system, it certainly has played a major role,” suggested Mosler. “Since the limits of the imperial presidential system in South Korea have become apparent, it’s necessary to reform both the power structure and election system — but just as important as the system are the people and methods behind it,” he stressed.   By Kwack Jung-soo, senior staff writerPlease direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr] 

Lacking real guiding philosophies, Korean politics has descended into hollow factionalism

A discussion among three Korean scholars about the state of Korean democracy and polarizationPark Sang-hoon, Cho Eun-joo and Kim Man-kwon speak at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute in Seoul on Sept. 19. (Shin So-young/The Hankyoreh) Editor’s note: The leader of South Korea’s main opposition party went on a hunger strike, a motion consenting to his arrest was passed by the National Assembly, which led to a protest by his supporters, and a warrant for his arrest was requested and then subsequently rejected. The intense political confrontation currently unfolding in Korea is not unusual, however. Even in the United States, which has long portrayed itself as a bastion of democracy, the Capitol was overtaken by rioters three years ago, and a former president is now under indictment. We are witnessing the rise of a climate where political opponents are increasingly seen as “enemies.” This crisis of democracy, intertwined with challenges like a struggle for global hegemony, wars, and inflation, is exacerbating public unease. In light of these developments, the Hankyoreh is publishing a series of articles in anticipation of the Asia Future Forum. The pieces in this series will delve into the root causes of these crises and explore potential solutions, in line with the forum’s theme: “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.”  When politics is used not as a means of solving problems but as a way to exploit the despair and rage of disenfranchised individuals, it exacerbates political polarization. That’s at the root of the democratic crisis witnessed in many countries, including the US and Korea.  On Sept. 19, three academics sat down together at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute to discuss what’s behind this problem and what can be done to find a modus vivendi. The three scholars in the conversation were Cho Eun-ju, an associate professor at Jeonbuk National University; Kim Man-kwon, a research professor at Kyung Hee University; and Park Sang-hoon, a visiting analyst at the National Assembly Futures Institute.  Cho Eun-ju: Talking about Korean society and politics tends to make people feel sad and upset. That’s because of the assumption that our society is getting worse or the expectation that it won’t get better.  Park Sang-hoon:We need to look into the possibility that politics is what’s angering and enraging people.  Kim Man-kwon:10.7% of Koreans are dealing with severe depression (according to a 2019 study by Seoul National University professor Yu Myeong-sun). That’s true of just 2.5% of Germans. Higher levels of depression are correlated with being young, living alone, having an irregular job, and having a lower income. The feeling comes from frustration with the disconnect between how one thinks the world ought to be and how it actually is. It comes from the feeling that the government and society aren’t looking out for you.  Park: Inequality has increased so quickly since Korea’s democratization. There’s also a huge gap in contentment between classes. The political parties don’t even bother campaigning to elderly people and people living alone because they tend not to vote or even pay taxes. There’s hardly anyone to speak for those people. Irregular workers have to deal with feelings of social exclusion every two years (during the collective bargaining period). Feelings of frustration are very high in those groups.  Kim: Democratization has also coincided with a period of forming a global market order in tandem with advancements in digital technology. There’s been a growing divide between the people who are and are not capable of taking advantage of it. This reality of everyone having to respond for themselves has led to anger, inequality, and a loss of trust in the state and society.  Cho: In the past, there was the belief that the situation could be made better through collective, organized processes such as political or labor union activities and social movements. Now even that hope has fallen by the wayside.  Democratic Party supporters rally outside the party’s headquarters in Seoul on Sept. 21 in protest after the National Assembly passed a motion to consent to the arrest of leader Lee Jae-myung. (Ko Byung-chan/The Hankyoreh) Park: In Korea, there’s a low rate of participation in “associations.” We haven’t developed the kind of structures of association that would allow society to resolve things independently. Instead, we’ve taken on characteristics of a state-centered society. If we developed more of a system of associations, we’d be able to resolve conflicts through other means and achieve coordination and cooperation between parties. Since that isn’t an option, people feel like they have to go into the streets.  Kim: We’re a state-reliant society, but not a society where people are protected. This bears connections with meritocracy, which broadly supports inequality. The kind of phenomenon you see in a society where there is little belief that politics or systems will protect you is a fixation on life insurance and real estate as if they were some last line of defense.  Cho: The lively proliferation of movements in post-democratization Korea has not translated into associations. No attempts were made to interpret the factors in the rage and anger that’s being expressed and turn them into political agendas. In the most recent presidential election, “men in their 20s” and “young people” were keywords, but rage remained simply a way of proving oneself in male-dominated online communities. Politics merely capitalized on those feelings, and there have been no improvements in youth policies at all.  Kim: Low levels of association are also linked to disdain toward labor. Because of low unionization rates, the 10%-15% of people who join unions have suddenly become a “privileged group.” When these people go out to fight for their rights, politicians attack the unions by calling them “spoiled,” which the public then believes. By attacking unionized workers, the politicians shift the blame they should be receiving onto others.  Park: South Korea is a strong state in terms of disciplinary power, but proves to be pretty powerless when it comes to reorganizing the structure of society in terms of people’s professions and their incomes through various social policies. What governs individuals is the market mechanism of meritocracy. Politics is about changing the economic life of society or individuals through government, but as of now, all the focus seems to be on who “owns” the country.  Cho: Korean society has too little real ideological conflict. That is to say, factional conflicts are too prominent. No one talks about which direction South Korean society should be heading, and only talk about what they like or dislike.  Park: There have never been any major ideological debates in our two-party system. Everything has remained pretty much the same. Politics revolves around fights between the previous president and the current president, and arguments about who will be the next president. Fights over the ownership of supreme power without ideology will only create divisions everywhere.  Kim: The terms “pro-Japan” or “pro-Pyongyang” do not signify ideologies, but are terms that define factional oppositions. The experience of colonization and partition, combined with other polarizing factors, can easily divide a society.  Park: What the opposing parties call ideological conflict may be better termed “anti-ideology,” as they have become factors that are mobilized to justify the hatred of their counterpart. It is a shame that political factions are not named “welfare” factions or “growth” factions, but “pro-Moon Jae-in,” “pro-Lee Jae-myung,” and so on, based on who they are friendly with. Communist totalitarianism [a neologism coined by President Yoon] is a dramatic example of how fictitious ideological conflicts are. They’re about creating imaginary enemies to fight.  Kim: There is no right and left in our politics, but a right and far right. In our two-party system, there is no culture of mutual recognition of the other party as a legitimate competitor, and there is no restraint in exercising institutional rights carefully.  Following Yoon Suk-yeol’s inauguration on May 10, 2022, Yoon guides the departing Moon Jae-in off the stage. (pool photo) Park: Who knows what the two parties are arguing about. Each of them acts like a ruling party when they’re the ruling party and acts like an opposition party when they’re the opposition party. The Democratic Party is active on labor issues now, but wasn’t when it was in power. The problem lies in the fact that the two biggest parties antagonize each other, not in the two-party system itself.  Cho: When it comes to institutional interventions to mitigate rising inequality, both parties are very weak. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic relief that South Korea provided to the public was among the lowest in the world. South Korea’s market ideology combined with nationalism is creating problems.  Park: Politicians talk big game about welfare, but the majority of bills that are introduced in the National Assembly are those proposing tax cuts.  Cho: The two main efforts by the state to reduce inequality are taxes and unions. South Korea is doing abysmally in both. In a world without protection provided by the state, the only way to protect yourself is to maximize profits. People who are unable to keep up with the competition are labeled “lazy” or told they haven’t made enough effort. They are hated and despised. Meritocracy is always transformed into a system that judges the “efforts” of others.  Park: The rise of Trump blew the top off the discontent of the American underclass. But polarization in South Korea? Social media is full of educated, middle-class people.  Cho: South Korea’s political polarization is worse than the rise of Trump. When it came to Trump, there was a group that he spoke for with every word. He worked by tapping into the group’s emotions and translating them into political support and organizing them politically in some form. If you look at that as a positive aspect of populism, we don’t have that in South Korea.  Park: Even in American politics, there are certain guardrails for the two-party system to work. Korea has them too. The National Assembly used to be more ashamed of breaking precedent or norms than breaking the law. But that’s no longer the case. Now, everyone wants to stick strictly to the letter of the law. Before that, they tried to solve problems through negotiation, and now we have a structure where politicians are judged by their supporters by who can spout the most vitriol at their opponents. It would be nice to be judged not on how well a representative fought, but on how well they argued meaningfully while maintaining the norms.  Knowing when to criticize your own party is also necessary. The Democratic faction, at least, needs to self-reflect. The lack of such reflection amplifies factionalism. In the US, the Republican Party was the one that brought on polarization, but in South Korea, it’s the Democratic Party that holds the key.  Cho: We need to look at the conflict in the long term, beyond the structure of fighting a major evil. We need to ask why the politics of anger, resentment, and antagonism have amplified since the candlelight protests, and what those rallies left for us.  Kim: The more divided a society is, the more it relies on intuitive understanding and emotional bases to solve problems. As political parties split into factions, conflict structures expanded and a sense of common ground disappeared.  After South Korea’s democratization, conservatives were never so headstrong. Previously, conservatives always had political experience, but the recent crop of conservatives have no political experience. They do not follow political norms, and merely base their actions off their own personal experiences.  Park: The Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party of the past, and the PPP is not the conservative party of the past. Conservatives were formerly characterized by a solid organizational foundation and dignity. But conservatives have lost that, and have become overrun by outside forces. The same goes for the Democrats.  Park formerly served as the dean of Power Plant, an organization dedicated to education and research. Cho’s forte is in social change and inequality and is the author of “Family and Governance.” Kim is a political philosopher and the author of “Homo Justice.”  By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer at Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute; Ro Young-joon, research assistant  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  한겨레에서 보기 : https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1112104.html​

Going beyond ESG washing with a new framework for assessing authentic sustainability

The UN Research Institute for Social Development’s Sustainable Development Performance Indicators were discussed as an alternative to the current myriad frameworks for assessing ESG complianceKatharina Herzog, co-founder and CEO of money:care, gives a presentation on trends and issues in sustainability performance using SDPI at the Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11. (Kim Jung-hyo/The Hankyoreh)   Amid a global trend toward standardized and mandatory ESG (environmental, social and governance) reporting, participants in a panel discussion on the topic of “Beyond ESG Washing, A New Sustainability Reporting Proposition” at the 14th Asia Future Forum agreed on the need for companies to properly assess sustainability.  The forum, which was hosted by the Hankyoreh Media Group, was held at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Seoul on Wednesday.  The Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI), which were developed by the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), were rated positively in the panel discussion for their presentation of the normative thresholds needed to make society more sustainable.  As part of the panel, Ilcheong Yi, a senior research coordinator at UNRISD, made a presentation titled, “Authentic Sustainability Assessment: Sustainable Development Performance Indicators.”  “While a number of ESG assessment indices are available, whether they accurately measure sustainability is a different question. The SDPI originated from a perceived need for a framework for assessing genuine sustainability,” Yi said in his presentation.  “[The current ESG indices] are little more than a game for big for-profit companies,” Yi said, taking issue with an incrementalist approach that is divorced from environmental carrying capacity, short-termism that only focuses on changes over the past few years, and the errors that result from overemphasizing averages.  Among the SDPI’s notable characteristics are its inclusion of small and medium-sized enterprises, which account for a large share of employment; the normative thresholds it provides; its context-based approach; and its analysis of long-term trends of five years or longer, Yi emphasized.  Katharina Herzog of money:care, an ESG assessment and consulting firm from Austria, also addressed the current limitations of ESG assessment in a presentation titled, “Recent Trends and Material Issues in Sustainability Performance of Global 200+ Companies Focusing on SDPI.”  Even companies that have received the highest ESG ranking might not be sustainable, Herzog said.  If we are to find a path to coexistence in the era of climate crisis, we need to redefine sustainability measurement, Herzog argued. When her agency assessed 200 listed companies around the world that are regarded as sustainable in terms of 12 items related to climate, society and gender among the 61 items in the SDPI assessment index, Herzog said it reached the disappointing conclusion that many companies have failed to achieve sustainability in the true sense of the word in terms of climate, the gender wage gap, and the CEO-worker pay ratio.  Yang Eun-young, the chief researcher on the social change team at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute, delivered a presentation that used the SDPI to assess the sustainability performance of the “big five” companies in the global IT (information technology) industry: Apple, Intel, Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). Her presentation was titled, “Sustainability Analysis of Global IT Companies: Focusing on the ‘Big Five’ Companies.”  “Apple and Intel showed considerable progress on implementation in the areas of environment, diversity and inclusion, while SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics did well in the areas of employee safety and quality and life. TSMC reported specific and detailed information in all areas and demonstrated a high degree of implementation in the areas of diversity, inclusion and sustainable management practices,” Yang said.  By Kwack Jung-soo, senior staff writer  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  한겨레에서 보기 : https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1112032.html​

It’s time to redesign democracy for use today – and Korea has a chance to do just that, says scholar

The mechanisms of democracy that trace back to the 18th century are insufficient to legitimize the amount of regulation necessary today, argues Jane MansbridgeJane Mansbridge, a professor emeritus at Harvard Kennedy School, gives a keynote presentation at the 14th Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11, held at the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry Grand Hall in Seoul’s Jung District. (Kang Chang-kwang/The Hankyoreh)   Imagine a shared living situation. While everyone else does the dishes, say there’s this one person who never does: a free rider. There’d still be plenty of clean dishes to use, but people would probably get fed up with their freeloading roommate. In a situation like this, one must create a system of enforced behavior that everyone can agree with.  This thought experiment comes from Jane Mansbridge, a professor emeritus at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. A winner of the prestigious Johan Skytte Prize in 2018, Mansbridge argues that we need more “free-use goods” — like the clean dishes in the above example — to bridge political polarization.  Examples of free-use goods are roads, ports, security, law and order — basically, any goods that anyone can use for free. She argues that the more people who need these goods, the more coercive power the state needs, such as by collecting taxes, and when free-riding occurs, the state must take legitimate action, such as by imposing fines.  Mansbridge, who has spent her career exploring the causes and solutions to political polarization, shared these ideas and more in her keynote presentation titled “The Deepest Foundations of Our Democratic Crisis” at the 14th Asia Future Forum, hosted by the Hankyoreh Media Group, on Wednesday.  Mansbridge is a scholar recognized for her outstanding academic achievements. In 2022, she was awarded the Benjamin E. Lippincott Award by the American Political Science Association, and in 2021, the Karl Deutsch Award by the International Political Science Association. She served as the president of the American Political Science Association in 2012 and is the author of “Beyond Adversarial Democracy.”  During her presentation on Wednesday, Mansbridge argued that as human interdependence has increased, so has the need for free-use goods. Naturally, she argued, the number of people wanting to freeload increased, thus increasing the need for regulations.  But the mechanisms of democracy that were made starting in the 18th century are insufficient to legitimize the amount of regulation necessary today, she says. Thus, the question is how to expand the legitimacy of state actions.  Mansbridge argues that we need to redesign the concept of democracy as it was created in the 18th century, and to do that, we need to first recognize the need for increased state regulation.  In redesigning democracy, political parties and citizens need to be in constant communication, according to Mansbridge. This ongoing two-way discussion between decision-makers and citizens is costly, both in terms of monetary funds and energy, but it is necessary to legitimize the regulation of the state. When representatives and citizens come together to discuss various political topics, new ideas can be generated.  The scholar expressed that she believes that South Korea could be the country that innovates from the standing democratic mechanisms because of not only its power on the international stage, but its relatively small size makes it conducive to change. Noting Korea’s ethics of entrepreneurship and creativity, and highly educated and hardworking populace, Mansbridge concluded that Korea’s big-picture thinking and determination to solve problems make it a prime subject to take on solving some of the major problems the world currently faces.  In the discussion that followed, the panelists expressed agreement with Mansbridge’s argument, but suggested that South Korea's unique political characteristics, history and social conflicts should also be considered.  Shin Jin-wook, a professor of sociology at Chung-Ang University said, that while the communication process of deliberative democracy is indeed crucial for overcoming the limitations of the democratic model, reality makes the process hard to achieve.  “There has to be a motivation to engage in communication, a culture of mutual respect, and a common goal of coexistence,” Shin said. “However, in a polarized political culture, these preconditions are often not met. Many people mock or refuse to engage with the other side."  According to Shin, we need to think about alternatives to “break the cycle.” Above all, Shin argued, it’s important to “spread and strengthen the culture of respect and listening to build the foundation of strong social solidarity.”  Kim Man-kwon, a political philosopher and research professor at Kyung Hee University’s Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, remarked that while the factors that Mansbridge considers while stating her case that South Korea can be a place of innovation are generally convincing, we should also consider other factors.  “We need to enter into the equation that Korea’s politics have continued to follow historical ideologies such as pro-Japan and pro-Pyongyang, the deepening hostility within the party system and its unlikeliness to change in the near future, the growing inequality in our society beginning with income disparity, and the hate and discrimination associated with meritocracy,” Kim commented. “These are the points we need to keep in mind when we consider whether Korea has the potential to be this place of innovative change.”  More important than political participation is the participation of people with well-organized and refined opinions, argued Park Sang-hoon, a visiting analyst at the National Assembly Futures Institute.  “We need to think about the issue of dwindling organized, refined, and responsible political participation,” he went on. “I think we’re at the peak of democracy globally, so I think a possible approach to getting democracy right is not to abandon what we’ve been doing and look for a new innovative model, but instead ponder on how to do what we’ve been doing better.”  By Son Hyun-soo, staff reporter  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  한겨레에서 보기 : https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1111880.html​

Graham Allison advises S. Korea to be more vocal with US, China and Russia

Korea needs to get used to playing in the big leagues, the former assistant US secretary of defense saidAt the 14th Asia Future Forum held in Seoul on Oct. 11, Sohn Suk-hee, the former anchor of JTBC’s news broadcast, speaks with Graham Allison, the former US assistant secretary of defense, who teleconferenced into the event. (Kim Jung-hyo/The Hankyoreh) Considering that South Korea has depended upon the US for national security and China for its economy, what strategic choice should Korea make now that those two countries are locked in a hegemonic struggle?  That’s a question Koreans cannot ignore as they’re already being affected, both directly and indirectly, by the US and China’s fierce struggle for hegemony.  In Keynote Session 2 of the 14th Asia Future Forum, which was hosted by the Hankyoreh Media Group on Wednesday, Graham Allison, a former US assistant secretary of defense, advised that Korea be more proactive and vocal amid the US and China’s hegemonic rivalry.  To be sure, the former US official predicted that Korea will likely come under heavy pressure as it seeks to balance the increasingly complex international interests given the impracticality of prioritizing relations with either the US or China.  Teleconferencing into the event to present his keynote, titled “In an Era of Rising Hegemony, What’s South Korea’s Choice,” Allison explained that the US-led unipolar system that has persisted since the end of the Cold War is coming to an end and explained that the rise of China is altering the geopolitical order.  Allison noted that “the era of US military primacy is over,” borrowing a phrase from former US Defense Secretary James Mattis, and urged observers to acknowledge that the US-China rivalry has spread to all domains, including the sky, sea, outer space and cyberspace. The security expert is also concerned that a conflict between the two powers could lead to a grim future.  Allison has described the fate of the US-China hegemonic rivalry in terms of “Thucydides’ trap,” a concept he derives from ancient Athenian historian Thucydides, author of the “History of the Peloponnesian War.”  The security expert has identified 16 times over the past five centuries when a hegemonic power has been challenged by a rising power, with 12 of those challenges leading to war. Thucydides’ trap is what happens when a rising power attempts to replace the current hegemonic power.  Allison argues that both the US and China have fallen into Thucydides’ trap, making the likelihood of war extremely high. While raising questions about the timing or form of such a war, he predicts that Taiwan is likely to be the trigger of any such conflict.  Citing the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction), the security expert mentioned that a war between the US and China could tragically lead to the destruction of both sides, without either side gaining a definite victory.  But Allison said the rivalry between the two nuclear-armed states involves not only MAD but also economic ties that tend to reduce the possibility of a clash.  Allison also said the two countries can avoid a conflict through the concept of “cooperative competition.” As an example, he mentioned how Samsung and Apple have a competitive relationship in the smartphone market but a cooperative relationship in the parts market.  But he also drew listeners’ attention to the historical experience of undesired wars, such as Mao Zedong’s decision to bring China into the Korean War.  In a following conversation with Sohn Suk-hee, a former newsroom anchor for JTBC, Allison said that Korea needs to be more proactive about securing its geopolitical interests.  Korea could stand to be more vocal in its relationships with the US, China and Russia, the security expert said, adding that Korea needs to figure out the predicament it’s in and be proactive as a participant and interested party.  Allison said there’s no reason for Korea to meekly submit to a strategy chosen by the US or China, adding that Korea is capable of expressing its viewpoint more clearly and sharply to the governments of the US, China and Russia.  According to Allison, Korea finds itself in an extremely multifaceted and complex situation where it must rely upon the US for its national defense and upon China for its economic prosperity. Korea need not be trapped in a dichotomous choice between the two, he advised.  Korea needs to get used to playing in the big leagues, he said.  Beginning in the late 1970s, Allison spent 30 years first as dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and then as director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, also at Harvard. As author of “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” and “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap,” he is regarded as one of the world’s top security experts.  By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  한겨레에서 보기 : https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1111887.html​

[Editorial] 2023 Asia Future Forum explores how to coexist in the era of the polycrisis

The 14th Asia Future Forum takes place at the Grand Hall of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Seoul on Wednesday   The crises are connected.  The extreme conflict in Korean politics is tied to the political encroachment of populism and the far right in Europe and the US, the self-styled paragons of democracy. Gross inequality and economic crisis are worsening as communities and societies implode because of mutual hatred and distrust.  Political crises in various countries lead to fissures in the international order. Powder kegs are going off all around us as the US and China continue their hegemonic rivalry, Russia leans into its invasion of Ukraine, and Israel and Hamas wage war on each other.  This is the era of the polycrisis — multiple interwoven crises that encompass our lives.  Some of the world’s leading thinkers are coming together to analyze the causes of these complex crises at the 14th Asia Future Forum at the Grand Hall of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Seoul on Wednesday. The theme of this year’s forum is “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.”  In particular, forum participants will be analyzing the issue of inequality, which is at the root of our political crisis, and exploring alternatives.  Jane Mansbridge, professor emeritus at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, will be delivering a keynote presentation on the topic “The Deepest Foundations of Our Democratic Crisis.”  Mansbridge warns that worsening inequality erodes our “we-feeling,” which is to say our sense of community, and tempts us to find external enemies to demonize or battle to create a feeling of homogeneity. The end result is a grave crisis in domestic politics and the international order.  Political and economic polarization and intense conflict between opposing sides on a domestic level and the approach of a new cold war on an international one are casting a disturbing shadow not only on Korea but on major countries around the world. These trends are not something that Korean society or the global community can allow to continue unchecked.  Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, will be delivering a lecture on the topic “The Price of Inequality, and Who Pays the Bigger Bill.” In Zucman’s analysis of inequality today, which is similar to levels during the Great Depression in the early 20th century, his ultimate prescription is tax policy.  That’s an argument that demands attention from South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, who has been simultaneously pursuing lower taxes and a balanced budget. Tax cuts benefit the wealthy, while fiscal austerity harms the poor. If the Korean government stays on its current course, inequality will worsen, with the poor left to bear most of the burden.  As polycrisis threatens lives around the world, the call to restore communities and societies, preserve peace and resolve inequality has never been so urgent. We hope this year’s Asia Future Forum will foster profound and vigorous debate aimed at finding alternative paths for Korean society.  More details can be found on the forum’s official website (www.asiafutureforum.org). 한겨레에서 보기 : https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/1111718.html

Analysis shows big 5 global IT firms have long way to go on sustainability

The Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute used the SDPI to assess the sustainability performance of five major global IT companies —Apple, Intel, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix — in the first SDPI-based assessment of corporate sustainability levels in KoreaA wind farm off the coast of Jeju Island in Korea. (Yonhap)   Apple and Intel in the US, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix in South Korea, and the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, better known as TSMC — these are the stars of the global IT, or information technology, industry. They have demonstrated their competitive edge in the market while pioneering innovation in IT.  These “big five” companies that have come to dominate the global IT market have also generally received strong ratings for ESG management, which refers to standards for environmental, social and governance issues. In short, they’re regarded as model ESG companies.  However, an assessment based on the Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI) devised by the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) has had markedly different results. All five of those companies only score 50-60 points on sustainability performance, placing them squarely in the “average” category. In short, they have a long way to go before achieving true ESG management or sustainability.  The Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute (HERI) used the SDPI to assess the sustainability performance of the “big five” global IT companies in the first SDPI-based assessment of corporate sustainability levels in Korea.  HERI will be presenting the results of its assessment in a research paper titled “Sustainability Analysis of Global IT Companies: Focusing on the ‘Big Five’ Companies” at the 14th Asia Future Forum at the Grand Hall of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Seoul on Wednesday. The Hankyoreh has concluded an MoU with UNRISD regarding cooperation on SDPI assessments.  An SDPI assessment covers a total of 61 indicators. There are 20 indicators in the first tier, which focuses on financial statement items including profit and eco-friendly investment, and 42 indicators in the second tier, which focuses on sustainability goals.  HERI selected 22 second-tier indicators for which corporate data was available that demonstrate SDPI’s distinctive nature and then chose 14 of those indicators with provided sustainability thresholds to compare the companies’ respective performance.  The indicators covered by HERI can be divided into the following areas.  There are three indicators in the environmental area: greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous waste treatment, and renewable energy; five indicators in the area of diversity and inclusion: gender pay gap, gender diversity in hiring, gender diversity in promotion, proportion of women in managerial positions, and number and percentage of women board members; four indicators in the area of sustainable management practices: CEO-worker pay gap, context-based triple bottom line accounting, amount of total fines paid or payable, and amount of corruption-related fines paid or payable; and two indicators in the area of staff safety and quality of life: caregiving support programs and frequency/incident rates of occupational injuries.  Providing sustainability thresholds is one of the SDPI’s distinctive characteristics. While other assessment indices generally focus on performance relative to the previous year, the SDPI is much stricter in that it judges performance against standards that need to be met for sustainable development — that is to say, sustainability thresholds.  Furthermore, the SDPI also assesses indicators that have been mostly ignored by other indices, including percentage of women in management, percentage of women board members, amount of total fines, and amount of corruption-related fines.  While the CEO-worker pay gap does come up in other assessment indices, the SDPI takes a novel approach to calculating that gap. The SDPI compares CEO pay to the median wage of workers in the lowest-paid quartile. That produces a bigger gap than other assessment indices, which tend to compare CEO pay to the average wages of all workers.  Ilcheong Yi, a senior research coordinator at the UNRISD said, “In an extreme scenario, we still might not be able to ensure the sustainability of our lives and environment even if every company on earth were to receive the highest ESG rating with strong performance compared with the year before.”  “The SDPI sets standards that companies need to meet for the sustainability of our lives and environment and evaluates how much individual companies have actually met those standards in order to guide them toward business approaches and practices that truly contribute to sustainable development,” he explained.  The basic aim of the SDPI is to encourage changes in behavior based on companies’ self-assessments. Accordingly, it does not assign its own performance scores or rankings to businesses. Instead, it presents “sustainability thresholds” for different indicators, using them as a metric for assessing execution on a five-point scale.  To attempt an objective comparison of company performance, HERI adopted an approach of assigning scores based on levels of results.  Three-point “sustainable” ratings were given in cases of sustainability or near-sustainability; two-point “average” ratings were given in cases where companies were moving in the direction of sustainability; and one-point “unsustainable” ratings were given in cases deemed to be unsustainable or significantly different from sustainable. No points were given in cases where information was not provided.  The highest possible score was 42, representing sustainable performance in all 14 indicators. The highest scores found for the companies examined were 26 points each for TSMC and Intel, followed by 25 for SK Hynix and 24 for Apple. Samsung Electronics came in last place with 22 points.  When company scores were converted to a scale where 100 points represented the maximum, TSMC and Intel tied with 61.9 points, followed by SK Hynix with 59.5, Apple with 57.1, and Samsung Electronics with 52.4.  The results showed that Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix — two representative companies in the South Korean IT industry — fell short of TSMC and Intel in their sustainability performance. SK can at least take comfort in having come in ahead of Apple.  In the area of environment (including greenhouse gas emissions), the top score was 8 points for Intel, followed by a three-way tie among TSMC, SK Hynix, and Apple with 5 points and Samsung Electronics in last place with 3 points.  Apple relies on overseas partner companies such as China’s Foxconn for much of its production. This gave it something of an advantage over the other big five companies in obtaining a high score on an environmental assessment. It’s also something that may have Samsung protesting the unfairness of the system after winding up dead last in both the overall total score and environmental score.  In the area of diversity and inclusiveness (including gender-based wage gaps), TSMC scored highest with 9 points, followed by a tie between Intel and Apple with 7 points each and a tie between Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix with 6 points each.  In terms of sustainable management practices, the top score was a three-way time among TSMC, Samsung Electronics, and SK Hynix with 10 points each, followed by Apple with 9 and Intel with 8. One factor contributing to Samsung and SK sharing the top spot was the fact that they both received maximum scores of 3 points for the wage difference between the CEO and workers.  But South Korean companies provide information only on average wages for all workers, rather than the median wage for the lowest-earning 25% of workers as the SDPIs demand. The actual might be lower if the companies complied with the SDPI standard.  On the whole, TSMC received strong ratings both in its total score and in individual areas. South Korean companies were shown to be relatively weak in the area of diversity and inclusiveness, which corresponds to the “governance” part of the ESG framework. Apple enjoyed an advantage in environmental assessments, but its poor overall rating and mediocre environmental rating showed the need for improvements.  Proper assessments of ESG and sustainability require companies to disclose information in a transparent manner.  Apple declined to provide information for four of the 14 assessment indicators. Samsung Electronics failed to furnish information for two, while Intel and SK Hynix omitted details for one each. TSMC, which came out on top in the assessment, disclosed all the requested information.  Comparison of the SDPI-based sustainability performance ratings for the big five companies with the ESG scores shared by Korean and overseas assessment organizations leads to some intriguing findings.  In a 2022 rating of the big five’s ESG performance, the globally recognized US-based assessment organization MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) gave TSMC a rating of AAA, while Intel received an AA, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix both received an A, and Apple was given a BBB.  This year, MSCI raised Intel’s raising one notch to an AAA. Its decision to rate TSMC and Intel the highest out of the big five also tallies with the SDPI scores, as does its assignment of a relatively low rating to Apple. But while the SDPI-based rating had Samsung Electronics receiving the lowest score, the MSCI’s rating found Apple to rank lowest.  At the same time, differences were also observed in the SDPI and MSCI’s absolute assessments. MSCI assigns a total of seven ratings: AAA (excellent), AA (good), A (favorable), BBB (average), BB (inadequate), B (poor), and CCC (very poor).  TSMC and Intel both received the highest possible rating, while Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix earned favorable ratings. Only Apple was rated as having average performance.  In contrast, the SDPI-based rating had all five of the companies performing in the range of 50 to 70 points out of 100.  Domestically, the Korea Institute of Corporate Governance and Sustainability (KCGS) gave an A rating to Samsung Electronics and a B+ to SK Hynix. In terms of the institution’s seven-point scale, Samsung received the third-highest score (favorable) and SK the fourth-highest (average). This means the KCGS’s rating was closer to the SDPI rating than to MSCI’s.  When it comes to the different ESG and sustainability indicators, it is impossible to reach conclusions about which are more accurate. But one important thing the SDPI ratings show is that even companies that earned strong ESG ratings from renowned assessment institutions can underperform in terms of sustainability.  In addition to the 14 indicators representing sustainability thresholds, HERI’s SDPI research report also includes findings from an assessment of eight “transformative disclosure” indicators that examine whether companies are collecting or managing related performance data.  For these indicators, the SDPI approach may assign “yes” or “no” values based on whether such performance data are collected or managed, or it may simply disclose the data. Assessment findings for the transformative disclosure indicator data — including areas such as workplace harassment, discrimination, union enrollment rates, and collective bargaining coverage — are also to be presented at the 14th Asia Future Forum.  Additionally, Katharina Herzog, CEO of the Austrian ESG assessment and consulting company money:care, will be attending the forum to personally share results from an SDPI assessment conducted on 166 listed companies in 30 countries. Of the 61 indicators used for SDPI, money:care selected 12 in particular, using artificial intelligence (AI) to extract data from information made publicly available by the companies.  The international community continues to release final proposals for standards for the reporting ESG and sustainability data. South Korea is in the midst of formulating a detailed roadmap for gradually making ESG disclosures mandatory starting in 2025. But corporations say they’re not ready and are pushing to delay the implementation of reporting standards. With ESG and sustainability reporting increasingly becoming the norm around the world, Korean companies must swiftly make substantial preparations so that they are becoming of global standards.  “Measuring the sustainability for the global big five IT firms based on SDPI assessments shows the importance of not just looking at the sorts of effort companies are making, but what the actual sustainability standards [indicators] are that companies should be realizing are and seeing how much they are achieving in comparison,” said Yi, the senior research coordinator.  “I look forward to contributing to creating a genuine sustainability reporting system in preparation for Korea making ESG reporting mandatory starting in 2025,” he added.  ■What are the Sustainable Development Performance Indicators?  The SDPIs are indices developed by the UNRISD, a UN-affiliated research agency, for assessing sustainability performance. After releasing a beta version in 2022, the research institute plans to complete the final version this month. There are said to be around 4,000 different indices for measuring ESG performance around the world, many of which are tailored to provide assessments that fit the prerogative of companies. For that reason, there’s been plenty of criticism that the systems have become nothing more than a means for ESG-washing. There are concerns that if these problems aren’t ameliorated, corporations won’t properly contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the UN on responses to poverty, disease and climate change. The SDPIs were developed to overcome ESG-washing by corporations and elicit real contributions to achieving the SDGs.  By Kwack Jung-soo, senior staff writer at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  view on hanyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1111721.html​​

Why America is facing the worst inequality since the Depression, and what can be done

 An interview with Gabriel Zucman, the John Bates Clark Medal-winning economist and professor at UC BerkeleyJob-seekers during the Great Depression in America.   Editor’s note: The leader of South Korea’s main opposition party went on a hunger strike, a motion consenting to his arrest was passed by the National Assembly, which led to a protest by his supporters, and a warrant for his arrest was requested and then subsequently rejected. The intense political confrontation currently unfolding in Korea is not unusual, however. Even in the United States, which has long portrayed itself as a bastion of democracy, the Capitol was overtaken by rioters three years ago, and a former president is now under indictment. We are witnessing the rise of a climate where political opponents are increasingly seen as “enemies.” This crisis of democracy, intertwined with challenges like a struggle for global hegemony, wars, and inflation, is exacerbating public unease. In light of these developments, the Hankyoreh is publishing a series of articles in anticipation of the Asia Future Forum, which will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 11. The pieces in this series will delve into the root causes of these crises and explore potential solutions, in line with the forum’s theme: “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.”  This year’s John Bates Clark Medal was awarded to Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley. The honor is presented each year by the American Economic Association to an economist under the age of 40 who has made significant contributions to the field. Zucman’s sophisticated tracking of tax evasion and measuring of income inequality were cited in the association’s reason for choosing to honor him. On Wednesday, Oct. 11, Zucman will give a keynote presentation titled “The Price of Inequality, and Who Pays the Bigger Bill” at the Asia Future Forum, which is hosted by the Hankyoreh. Here we present our interview with the economist, which took place on Sept. 11 over Zoom.  Gabriel Zucman, professor of economics at UC Berkeley. (courtesy of UC Berkeley)  Hankyoreh: How severe would you say that the state of inequality is right now?Zucman: The top 1% highest income earners in the US used to earn about 10% of total national income in the 1980s, and today they earn more than 20% of total national income, so their share of total national income has been multiplied by two. This share of 20% for the top 1% highest earners is about the same as their share in 1929 on the eve of the Great Depression. In terms of income inequality, the US is back to the very high level of inequality that existed in the 1920s — and that’s the highest level of inequality that’s been observed in the US since its creation.  If you look at wealth, the picture is pretty much the same. Wealth is more concentrated than income pretty much everywhere and always. But the dynamics have shown a very significant increase, just like income. In 1980, the top 1% used to own 20%-25% of total wealth, and today the top 1% by wealth owns about 40% of total wealth. Again, we’re back to the level of concentration that was observed a century ago, at the beginning of the 20th century. Hankyoreh: What’s caused inequality to become so severe?  Zucman: A mixture of factors, what is sometimes called the turn to market fundamentalism in the 1980s: decline in tax progressivity, fall of minimum wage, decline in public investment in infrastructure and higher education, changes in the regulation of money in politics. Hankyoreh: What sort of negative effects has inequality had?  Zucman: For the very rich, wealth is power. It’s the power to influence policymaking; it’s the power to influence politics more broadly. It’s the power to influence the prevailing ideology by newspapers or media. It’s the power to influence markets by buying companies, new entrants, by protecting monopoly positions. So wealth is power for the rich, which means that an extreme concentration of wealth leads to an extreme concentration of economic and political power. So there’s a tension between democratic ideals on the one hand and the concentration of wealth on the other hand.  From the 2022 World Inequality Report.  Hankyoreh: Can inequality changed based on political choices? Zucman: We see that inequality varies a lot across time and space, suggesting a key role for policies. Many people have become convinced that there’s not a lot that the government can do to regulate the economy, to regulate inequality. That’s what’s been told to the population for many decades: That in a globalized world, what the government can achieve is very limited because if you try to tax corporations they will go abroad, if you try to encourage unions and high working-class wages, then production is going to be outsourced. There are many different forms of globalization that are possible. It falls on us, as interconnected nations, to decide what form of globalization we want.  It’s not the case that inequality has increased at the same pace everywhere. There are, in fact, very important differences. In the US, the top 1% income share has increased from 10% in 1980 to 20% today. If you look at continental Europe, it has increased from about 10% in 1980 — the same starting point as the US — to about 12% today. This suggests that what really matters is the different policy options that have been chosen by countries. If it was only technological change, or international trade, or globalization, we should have seen inequality increase very fast in Europe, for instance. But I’m more convinced by the argument that domestic policy, like taxation, market regulation, minimum wages have had a bigger role. Hankyoreh: What happened in the US in the ’80s? Zucman: When Reagan enters the White House in 1981, the top marginal income tax rate is 70%. At the time, it’s the highest tax rate for high earners among all industrialized countries. And then in 1986 — just five years after — this rate is reduced to 28%. That’s the lowest rate of all industrialized countries at the time. It’s clear that by and large that that has not been a success; it’s been a pretty large failure. The reality is that the growth performance of the US has been quite poor since the 1980s. Not only has growth declined, but growth and income have become much more unequally distributed. You have a situation where about half the population has been excluded from economic growth since the 1980s. The US has gone very far in one direction of saying: Look, we are going to allow people to become very, very rich if they want to; we’re not going to collect taxes, and it’s going to trickle down and eventually benefit the rest of the population. But that has not been enough. The core engine of economic growth is not low taxes for the rich, it is access to high-quality education for all, access to good health care for all, and good public infrastructure. Hankyoreh: Do we need to bolster progressive taxes and implement a wealth tax? Zucman: Taxation is probably the most powerful tool for regulating inequality. If we want to break the cycle of extreme wealth concentrating into extreme political power, we have to start by taxing the super-rich. And the way that this is going to work is with a progressive wealth tax on wealth itself. We need to introduce taxes that are really going to be binding and biting for wealthy people. By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer; Ro Young-joon, research assistant at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  view on hanyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1111395.html

Political polarization is product of inequalities caused by expanding markets, says theorist

 An interview with Professor Emerita Jane Mansbridge of Harvard Kennedy SchoolPro- and anti-Trump ralliers stand outside the courthouse in downtown New York where Trump appeared for his arraignment on April 4, 2023. (Lee Bon-young/The Hankyoreh)  Editor’s note: The leader of South Korea’s main opposition party went on a hunger strike, a motion consenting to his arrest was passed by the National Assembly, which led to a protest by his supporters, and a warrant for his arrest was requested and then subsequently rejected. The intense political confrontation currently unfolding in Korea is not unusual, however. Even in the United States, which has long portrayed itself as a bastion of democracy, the Capitol was overtaken by rioters three years ago, and a former president is now under indictment. We are witnessing the rise of a climate where political opponents are increasingly seen as “enemies.” This crisis of democracy, intertwined with challenges like a struggle for global hegemony, wars, and inflation, is exacerbating public unease. In light of these developments, the Hankyoreh is publishing a series of articles in anticipation of the Asia Future Forum, which will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 11. The pieces in this series will delve into the root causes of these crises and explore potential solutions, in line with the forum’s theme: “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.”  Jane Mansbridge is a brilliant theorist of democracy who was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize five years ago, an honor considered tantamount to a Nobel prize in the political science world. The Harvard Kennedy School professor emerita previously served as president of the American Political Science Association.  Ahead of Mansbridge’s upcoming keynote presentation at the Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11 on the topic “The Deepest Foundations of our Democratic Crisis,” the Hankyoreh sat down with her for an interview on Sept. 7, during which the scholar shared her ideas for alleviating political polarization by taming the market and reducing inequality.  Jane Mansbridge speaks to the Hankyoreh from her home in the suburbs of Boston on Sept. 7. (Ryu Yi-geun/The Hankyoreh)  Hankyoreh: Many experts speak of a crisis of democracy. In what ways do you think the recent phenomenon is different from previous crises?  Mansbridge: The stakes are huge. Mistakes can be more costly than at any previous moment in human history. A needless war, of which humans have experienced many in the course of our history, can now produce nuclear holocaust.  Hankyoreh: While there are many differences in political systems and cultures across countries, do you think there are any common global historical trends underlying this phenomenon of political polarization?  Mansbridge: Yes, I think polarization is caused by the inequalities brought about by the expansion of markets and the retreat from the goal of taming capitalism. Economic and social inequality leads people to live in different worlds. They may not only have no friends from different classes; they may not even speak with people of a different class on a confidential basis. The richer classes, who usually also have more political power, may not have any idea of what it is like to be working-class or poor. They are likely to think they have earned their status and have no obligation to anyone else. The poor and even the working class are likely to think that the richer classes don’t care at all about their lives and don’t realize how hard they have worked and how hard it is to bring their children up. This is not a recipe for “we-feeling.” The only way you get we-feeling in a situation like that is to demonize, or start a war with, some outside enemy. Instead, it is a recipe for polarization, for each side in the internal politics of the state thinking the other side is the enemy.  Hankyoreh: Can capitalism be tamed?  Mansbridge: Capitalism unchecked produces more and more economic, and therefore social, inequality. In my view, the answer is not to try to do away with capitalism, or at least the free market, which can encourage entrepreneurship and promote the success of things that people want. The answer is to tame capitalism and not let it get out of hand, the way the peoples in the Scandinavian nations traditionally have done. The lack of polarization and the strong welfare states in Northern Europe have reciprocal causes. The lack of polarization produces strong across-the-board support for the welfare state and the welfare state enables a “we-feeling” that produces support for a strong welfare state.  With reference to free-riding, regulations, and the coercive power of the state, Mansbridge explains that in order to alleviate political polarization, we need more “free-use goods.” Only once there is a greater supply of things that everyone and anyone can use free of charge — roads, ports, national security, to name a few — can political polarization be tackled. But in order to do so, Mansbridge says that the state, with its capacity legitimately to impose penalties — for example, to get people to pay taxes — is a necessary component of the provision of such free-use goods. Her words are imbued with a reflection on those ideologies that seek expansion of markets and deregulations. Mansbridge points to the Northern Europe welfare state model, where residents pay around half their income in taxes and are supplied with a plethora of free-use goods, as a solution. The only catch is that, in order to achieve such a system, corruption must first be weeded out.  Hankyoreh: What efforts must we make to overcome adversarial democracy?  Mansbridge: I find hope in the new mechanism of Deliberative Polls and citizens assemblies, where a randomly selected group of 100 or more citizens comes together to deliberate about policies and advises the legislature or an administrative agency. Another mechanism, “Connecting to Congress” or “Connecting to Parliament,” brings a randomly selected group of citizens together to discuss issues with their elected representative. Both mechanisms rightly place faith in the abilities of ordinary citizens, given time, an adequate factual basis, and the opportunity to talk across class and political lines, to deliberate over policies and come to reasonable conclusions.  In her final thoughts of the interview, Mansbridge predicted that if Donald Trump were to reelected to the White House, it would greatly add to the current democratic crisis.  By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer; Ro Young-joon, research assistant at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  View on hanyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1111201.html​

How “America First” cost the world and fomented uncertainty across the globe

 American protectionism has touched off a litany of overlapping crises across the worldOn Dec. 1, 2016, president-elect Donald Trump visits a Carrier air conditioner production line in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he talks with workers. Trump publicized the fact that he had saved 1,100 jobs for Americans by stopping Carrier from moving their plant to Mexico. (AP/Yonhap)   Editor’s note: The leader of South Korea’s main opposition party went on a hunger strike, a motion consenting to his arrest was passed by the National Assembly, which led to a protest by his supporters, and a warrant for his arrest was requested and then subsequently rejected. The intense political confrontation currently unfolding in Korea is not unusual, however. Even in the United States, which has long portrayed itself as a bastion of democracy, the Capitol was overtaken by rioters three years ago, and a former president is now under indictment. We are witnessing the rise of a climate where political opponents are increasingly seen as “enemies.” This crisis of democracy, intertwined with challenges like a struggle for global hegemony, wars, and inflation, is exacerbating public unease. In light of these developments, the Hankyoreh is publishing a series of articles in anticipation of the Asia Future Forum, which will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 11. The pieces in this series will delve into the root causes of these crises and explore potential solutions, in line with the forum’s theme: “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.”    In 1979, Tony Michael left the Soviet Union in search of freedom, arriving in the US with dental equipment in tow. Today, the very hammer he brought with him back then, alongside timeworn crowns and dental prosthetics, sits on display in his office located on the outskirts of Chicago. However, the dental lab that he manages with two other partners is not thriving as it once did. Struggling to adapt to the advancements in digital technology, their competitive edge has waned. Yet, for Michael, an even greater challenge has emerged from China. His lab produces dental crowns, selling them to local dental practices for US$200 apiece. However, Chinese equivalents fetch a mere US$30 and can be air-shipped within a week.  The US dental market, estimated to be worth approximately US$13 billion, continues to grow each year. However, the number of dental labs is on the decline due to aging owners, the allure of retirement, and the surge of affordable Chinese imports.  Michael's personal journey is but a microcosm of a larger narrative faced by countless manufacturing workers in the Rust Belt — a region in the US Midwest grappling with immense technological developments and the influence of China. These challenges stem from the expansion of free trade under the guise of globalization. Between 2000 and 2010, manufacturing employment in six Rust Belt states plummeted by 35%, a decrease sharper than during the Great Depression. A quarter of this job loss was estimated to be due to the “China effect.”  Although new jobs have emerged, many lack stability or offer low wages. For the white working class of the Rust Belt, dubbed the “left behind,” Donald Trump's “America First” approach resonated deeply. Trump vowed to restore jobs and dignity to this beleaguered community, a promise that undoubtedly played a pivotal role in his 2016 presidential triumph.  According to John Austin, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in the US, the Rust Belt is a region defined by a large segment of its population that feels alienated and marginalized due to geopolitical factors. He noted that this provides fertile ground for populist leaders and amplifies sentiments of nationalism, isolationism, and economic nostalgia, which fuels political polarization and damages Western democracy. Trump, it seems, knew precisely where to plant his seeds.  An American flag flies at the Port of Los Angeles in California in December 2016, where shipping containers filled with Chinese goods wait to be unloaded. Trump slapped a 25% tariff on Chinese goods two years later, claiming that they were taking away jobs from Americans. (Reuters/Yonhap) To Trump’s supporters, “America First” felt as refreshing as an ice-cold soda on a hot day. Take Aaron, an economics graduate now employed at a Milwaukee insurance firm, who encapsulates this sentiment. According to him, US politics have sidelined Americans for the better part of a century. But Trump changed that, he said, adding that Trump championed American interests and workers, not just in words, but with tangible policy actions.  To safeguard American interests and jobs, Trump set his sights on China. The US had long reaped the benefits of incorporating the East Asian giant into the global supply chain as a base for subcontracting. However, as China grew in stature, it became a perceived “threat” to US dominance. In 2018, as Trump levied a 25% tariff on Chinese goods, China retaliated in kind. This tit-for-tat escalated into a trade dispute that sent anxious ripples across the global trade landscape.  The roots of America First can be traced back to the Buy American Act signed by President Herbert Hoover on his last day in office in 1933. This act was a protectionist measure that prioritized the purchase of American-made products by the government. Thus, while the America First sentiment was not a novel concept, it took on a sharper focus under Trump, particularly in the realms of trade and international relations, in a bid to resonate with white working-class voters. However, what came as a surprise to many was current President Joe Biden's decision to expand and deepen Trump’s America First approach, even though he was initially expected to diverge from his predecessor’s policies.  “The Biden administration has maintained and even strengthened policies such as prioritizing the purchase of American-made products, protectionism, and pressuring China in trade since taking office,” explained Park Bok-yeong, a professor at Kyung Hee University’s Graduate School of Pan-Pacific International Studies. “While Trump’s policies were limited to trade pressures against China, Biden’s approach toward China is a combination of trade pressure (protectionism) and values-based diplomacy (raising issues like human rights in Hong Kong and the Taiwan issue), intensifying both strategic and ideological competition.”  To do so, Biden employed tools like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIPS and Science Act. This is a strategy of encouraging companies to build factories in the US, creating manufacturing jobs while simultaneously blocking challenges from China.  (courtesy of the National Bureau of Economic Research)  While these moves have had significant political effects in the US domestically, their actual economic impact remains unverified. Globally, they have led to considerable confusion and cost.  “Policies designed to curb inflation and stimulate the economy often ironically produce the opposite result,” commented Oh Town, a professor at DePauw University in the US. “Protectionism can lead to rising prices, declining product quality, and disruptions in the supply chain.”  Yet, there is an undeniable political rationale behind both Trump and Biden bolstering protectionist measures while using the safeguarding of manufacturing jobs as justification. Park explained, “It is largely a response to the rising unemployment and growing discontent among the US’s white working class. Their votes in the several most recent presidential elections have indeed been crucial.”  America First has intensified US-China trade disputes and, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, has accelerated the restructuring of global supply chains. With the added layer of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has further fueled global inflation. Moreover, rising prices caused by these multi-layered crises and the raising of interest rates to tame them have heightened suffering and anxiety worldwide.  The America First strategy led to a butterfly effect that brought about these overlapping crises. The costs, however, are being borne by not just the US, but the entire world.  By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  View on hanyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1111157.html​

To balance between US and China, S. Korea must choose alignments and oppositions according to issue,

 Graham Allison, a renowned scholar of international affairs, will be speaking at the 14th Asia Future Forum held on Oct. 11 at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry Grand HallSouth Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, US President Joe Biden, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stand for a photo outside the Aspen Lodge at Camp David, the US presidential retreat in Maryland, on Aug. 18 following their trilateral summit. (Yonhap)   When it comes to the US and China, South Korea should put forth a balanced foreign and security policy through “different alignments and oppositions” on issues rather than take sides, advised Graham Allison, a former dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and US assistant secretary of defense, in an interview with the Hankyoreh on Wednesday.  Our interview comes ahead of Allison’s presentation at the Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11, hosted by the Hankyoreh and organized by the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute.Allison also predicted that South Korea would be part of a “multi-dimensional balance of power.” Those interested in hearing the particulars of Allison’s insights into what choices Korea — reliant on the US for security and China for its economy — should make amid the heated hegemonic rivalry between the US and China are invited to attend the forum.Hankyoreh: In an interview with a South Korean media outlet, you said that it is very important for South Korea to balance its security and economic interests with those of the United States and China. While this is the case, doing so is becoming more difficult.Graham Allison:The reason for this is that the conflict between the US and China has escalated into a trade conflict, which has shaken the balance of economic interests that South Korea has had with China since China’s opening up. It’s becoming more difficult to balance these two interests, security and economy, and I'm wondering what the best options and strategies South Korea has in this environment. South Korea is a modern miracle: Despite the threats from North Korea and despite provocations from North Korea, South Koreans have seen more improvement in their well-being than in any other seven decades in their history. Americans are proud to have played a part in creating the environment in which this was able to take place, serving as South Korea’s primary security partner. What South Korean President Yoon did in the Washington Declaration was just the most recent example of this decades-long partnership.  President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea poses for a photo with Chinese Premier Li Qiang to mark their summit on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Indonesia. (Yonhap) Yet while South Korea’s security depends on the US, its prosperity undoubtedly depends on China, which is its largest trading partner. While there will be those who claim South Korea needs to choose one or the other, we do not live in a black-and-white world, but instead one that forces us to become accustomed to 50 shades of alignment and opposition. The way that South Korea balances this will be through different alignments and oppositions, depending on the issue at hand. So while the US tries to cope with China by constructing a stronger network of allies, they understandably want to strengthen ties with South Korea. And as China grows more powerful, it undoubtedly is a larger threat to South Korea. But given this economic reliance, they won’t ever fully align against China, which is why they are not a member of the Quad, for instance. Instead, they’ll be part of a multi-dimensional balance of power. In some dimensions, you'll have very thick partnerships between two parties who will be serious rivals in other areas.   Graham Allison, a renowned international relations scholar and former US assistant secretary of defense. (courtesy of Allison)   Hankyoreh: The current administration has been strengthening diplomacy between South Korea, the United States and Japan. There is a stronger trilateral cooperation system than at any time in the past few decades. Sometimes, our relationship with China creates unnecessary misunderstandings. When it comes to North Korea, we are confronting them on the principle of strength and power rather than cooperation and dialogue. What are your thoughts and assessments on these aspects of South Korea’s diplomacy and foreign policy?Allison:South Korea is forced to try to continue surviving next door to a very erratic and sometimes seemingly irrational North Korea that has an increasingly robust nuclear arsenal as well as a million-man army. The regime is increasingly able to threaten even the United States. Living beside Kim Jong-un and the North Korean regime has been very challenging for South Korea for 70 years and is likely to become more challenging in the period ahead.  Yet the emerging balance of power in Asia is also something on Yoon’s radar. We saw this in the recent meeting at Camp David between Japan, South Korea, and the US. The tides are shifting and, given the challenge and threat posed by China, the security interests of these three countries are increasingly converging. Yet despite increasing commonality, divergent views on the economic benefits and security risks from China will remain; that’s why we’re going to see in Asia this emerging, multi-dimensional balance of power with different alignments and oppositions along different dimensions. By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  View on hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1111000.html​

Four prices of inequality as seen by a John Bates Clark Medal-winning economist

 Gabriel Zucman, an award-winning economist with a focus on tax evasion and inequality, will be speaking at the 14th Asia Future Forum held on Oct. 11 at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry Grand HallGabriel Zucman, professor of economics at UC Berkeley. (courtesy of UC Berkeley)   There is an award that is said to be even more difficult for US economists to win than the Nobel in economic science: the John Bates Clark Medal. Every year, the American Economic Association presents it to a US economist under 40 who is deemed to have made a major contribution to economic thought and knowledge.Even truly outstanding scholars could find themselves ruled ineligible because of the age limit. Established in 1947, the honor was presented every other year until 2009, when it became an annual prize. The awardees are a list of true luminaries. Many of them are names familiar from economics textbooks, such as Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, James Tobin, Kenneth Arrow, and Robert Solow. Well-known winners from more recent years have included Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Lawrence Summers. This year’s winner was Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The reasons cited by the American Economic Association for his selection filled two whole pages. A single-line summary distills them to his achievements in more sophisticated measures of tax evasion and inequality in income and wealth. On Oct. 11, Zucman is scheduled to speak at Keynote Session 3 the 14th Asia Future Forum, an event sponsored by the Hankyoreh and organized by the Hankyoreh Economic Research Institute. His topic is “The price of inequality, and who pays the bigger bill.” The Hankyoreh recently interviewed Zucman via videoconference and email.Inequality, which alongside the climate crisis poses a threat to human coexistence, is also dangerous in terms of fomenting political anxieties. Zucman expressed concerns about the rate and degree of inequality. The percentage of income and wealth represented by the top 1% in the US is equivalent to their levels just before the Great Depression began in the late 1920s. South Korea is no exception to the severe state of inequality. The rate of its progression has also been steep. In the US, the proportion of income and wealth represented by the top 1% has doubled since the 1980s. Zucman placed the blame for this on market capitalism, including tax cuts and deregulation. He named four main prices of inequality. The first of them is the potential for damage to be done to the very principles of democracy as the minority accounting for the bulk of income and wealth comes to assume political power as well. The wealthier these few become, the greater their ability to apply pressure so that budget allocation and policy decisions are beneficial to them. A concentration of wealth translates into a concentration of political power. Second, the concentration of wealth and income with a minority of people means a smaller share for everyone else. Since the 1980s — a decade that saw inequality rising at a steep rate — the proportion of the overall pie for the lowest-earning 50% in the US has actually shrunk. The growth that has taken place has not been equitable for the other half.  From the 2022 World Inequality Report Third, inequality weakens innovation. Zucman stressed that some degree of inequality is necessary as a motivation to drive innovation. It isn’t desirable for everything to be completely equal, he explained.Conversely, innovation is impossible in an environment of increased inequality. When one person monopolizes wealth and income, the other 99 can no longer find any motivation to innovate.Fourth, the growth of inequality as tax cuts and other forms of market capitalism intensify makes it impossible to find the resources needed to expand the public goods needed for economic growth, including education, public health and infrastructure.As the tax burden on the wealthy is lowered, it becomes more difficult for the state to acquire resources through taxation, thus reducing the potential for public investment.Despite the phenomena of deepening inequality around the world, Zucman is not pessimistic. He views inequality as a matter of political choice. As an example, he noted how the maximum income tax rate in the US surpassed 90% in the wake of World War II. Then-President Franklin Roosevelt sent a letter to Congress in an attempt to set a kind of income ceiling where no one could earn an after-tax income above US$250,000. His goal was to create a 100% tax rate for any earnings above that.The “compromise” for that extreme policy approach was the maximum income tax rate above 90%, Zucman explained.  The US tax rate was slashed from the highest among the advanced economies to the upper 20% range during the Ronald Reagan presidency. Within just a few years, it was reduced to the lowest among advanced economies.Recalling this history, Zucman stressed that the extent of inequality can depend on policy decisions — and that policies fall in the realm of political choice. In particular, he took a positive view of calls within the US Democratic Party for a stronger progressive taxation system in the wake of Bernie Sanders’ bid for president. When it comes to inequality, different countries follow different paths. Countries in Europe, where the rate of increasing inequality has been less severe than in the US, have adopted more proactive policies in terms of taxation, market regulation, and the minimum wage.Zucman’s upcoming talk may provide an opportunity for lessons and advice on how South Korea — which is increasingly coming to resemble the US — can reduce the costs associated with inequality. Those interested in attending the session can register on the Asia Future Forum website (www.asiafutureforum.org). By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute; Ro Young-joon, research assistant at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]  View on hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1110816.html​

An expert’s opinion on Korea’s options in the hegemonic rivalry between US, China

 Graham Allison, a renowned scholar of international affairs, will be speaking at the 14th Asia Future Forum held on Oct. 11 at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry Grand HallGraham Allison, a renowned international relations scholar and former US assistant secretary of defense. (courtesy of Allison) Caption 1-2: In a meeting in November 2018, Chinese Premier   On Oct. 11, Graham Allison will be delivering a keynote presentation titled “In an Era of Rising Hegemony, What’s South Korea’s Choice?” in Keynote Session 2 of the 14th Asia Future Forum, which is being hosted by the Hankyoreh and organized by the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute.  Allison has been advising the US Department of Defense since the 1960s as a member of the Defense Policy Board and in other positions. He served as special advisor to the secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, a Republican president, and as assistant secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, a Democratic president. As this suggests, his scope of activity transcends any specific administration or political party. He has also blurred the boundary between theory and practice.  Allison was the “founding dean” of the Harvard Kennedy School, a position he held from 1977 to 1989. Later, he served as director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, also at Harvard. Among the numerous books that Allison has authored, “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” and “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?” are global bestsellers that have been recognized as modern classics.Along with 100-year-old Henry Kissinger, Allison is regarded as the greatest living expert on foreign affairs and national security. His counsel is especially important in the confusion of our era, when the hegemonic rivalry between the US and China is heating up and the world order is being reshaped. Allison’s book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?” is back in the spotlight, six years after its original publication. The book describes 16 times over the past five centuries when a hegemonic power was challenged by a rising power. Twelve of those confrontations have led to war, while the hegemonic and rising power have only managed to avoid war four times. The Thucydides trap — a term coined by Allison himself — describes the dangerous dynamics that tend to emerge when a rising power threatens to replace a dominant power. Thucydides was the ancient Athenian historian who wrote “History of the Peloponnesian War,” describing a famous conflict between Athens and Sparta.  In a meeting in November 2018, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (right) speaks with US Sen. Lamar Alexander, the head of a US delegation to China. At this meeting, Li said that a trade war “is not a way to solve problems.” (AP/Yonhap)   As Allison describes it, the hegemonic power is the US, and the rising power is China. The clash between the two countries could either preserve the peace (as in four of the past 16 such clashes) or lead to war (as in the other twelve).Recently, China’s rise has been undermining the US’ position, and the US-led international order has been losing coherence. Interestingly, the Thucydides trap is often triggered indirectly by third parties, rather than by the rival powers themselves. The Peloponnesian War arose from a conflict between Corinth and Corcyra (modern-day Corfu), not Athens and Sparta, while World War I was set off by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In a TED talk in 2018, Allison expressed his concern that North Korea, led by Kim Jong-un, might play such a role. While Allison suggests that strengthening economic interdependence can reduce the risk of war that results from falling into Thucydides’ trap, the US and China’s hegemonic competition has already spread beyond the political and military domains to the economy. Rising tariffs are part of an intensifying trade war between the two countries, which are locked in a do-or-die competition in semiconductors and other high-tech sectors. One outcome is the reorganization of the global division of labor. As hostile fronts coalesce between the two powers, South Korea is coming under greater pressure to definitively align itself with one side or the other. In short, the hegemonic struggle between the US and China is directly impacting the lives of those on the Korean Peninsula. At the Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11, we will hear from Graham Allison, a renowned foreign policy and national security strategist, about what choice should be made by Koreans, who stand at the center of this hegemonic clash. Readers who are interested in attending can sign up here: www.asiafutureforum.org  By Ryu Yi-geun, senior staff writer at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute; Ro Young-joon, research assistant at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]   View on Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1110392.html 

[Announcement] 14th Asia Future Forum on “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence”

 The forum will take place on Oct. 11 at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry Grand Hall The Hankyoreh will be hosting the Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11 as part of its ongoing quest for a better society and sustainable development. The theme of this year’s forum is “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.”While the COVID-19 pandemic may have subsided, we remain besieged by overlapping crises such as inflation, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the intensifying hegemonic rivalry between the US and China. Unfortunately, politics is being used to rally the base rather than to defuse internal conflicts, exacerbating confrontation in our society. The 14th annual Asia Future Forum seeks to bring together global luminaries who can share their wisdom as we seek a path to coexistence that runs through these various crises. On the morning of Oct. 11, the forum’s keynote address will be delivered by Jane Mansbridge on the topic of “How confrontation and exclusion threaten democracy.” Mansbridge is professor emeritus at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a recipient of the prestigious Johan Skytte Prize, which has been nicknamed the “Nobel Prize for Political Science.” The next speaker will be Graham Allison, former US assistant secretary of defense and author of “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap?” and “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Allison will be speaking at the forum on the following topic: “In an era of rising hegemony, what is South Korea’s choice?” A presentation about “The price of inequality, and who pays the bigger bill” will be made by Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. Zucman won this year’s John Bates Clark Medal, which is awarded each year to an outstanding American economist under the age of 40. Television celebrity Tyler Rasch will be delivering a special lecture at the forum about three misconceptions that must be debunked if we are to counter the threat to humanity posed by the climate crisis, as well as three actions we need to focus on. That afternoon, Parallel Session 1 will feature the Asia Policy Dialogue of the Global Social Economy Forum, which will explore the possibility of connecting and restoring communities. Parallel Session 2 will present “Korea Talks,” an experimental initiative in Korean media to discover whether it’s possible for adversaries to become friends through personal interaction. And in Parallel Session 3, Katharina Herzog, co-founder of a group called “money:care,” will deliver a presentation about the sustainability of companies that go beyond ESG washing. Paul Ladd, the director of the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), will give a special address on the topic of social sustainability and human rights management by corporations. In addition, the Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI) developed by the UNRISD will be introduced together with the results of an investigation of global companies’ sustainability performance.     View on Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1110368.html​

To ease political polarization, more free-use goods must be offered, says scholar

 Jane Mansbridge will give a keynote presentation at the 14th Asia Future Forum, held on Oct. 11 at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and IndustryJane Mansbridge, an emeritus professor at Harvard University. (courtesy of the Harvard Kennedy School) Jane Mansbridge, an emeritus professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, was honored six years ago with the Johan Skytte Prize, which has been called the “Nobel Prize of political science.” Every year since 1995, the prize has been given to the scholar judged to have made the most valuable contributions to political science.  In awarding the prize to Mansbridge, the Johan Skytte Foundation said that with her “sharpness, deep involvement and feminist theory,” she had “shaped our understanding of democracy in its direct and representative forms.” Various other awards also testify to Mansbridge’s stellar academic achievements. Last year, she received the Benjamin E. Lippincott Award from the American Political Science Association; two years ago, she was given the Karl Deutsch Award by the International Political Science Association. Her books include “Beyond Adversary Democracy,” which has not yet been published in Korean translation. She also served as president of the American Political Science Association from 2012 to 2013. All around the world, people are voicing concerns that democracy is in crisis. Because of this, more and more are turning their attention once again to Mansbridge’s lessons as a leading theorist of democracy in the hopes of finding an escape from the current climate of “adversary democracy” characterized by intensifying conflict, antagonism and demonization. On Oct. 11, Mansbridge will be taking part as a speaker at Keynote Session 1 of the 14th Asia Future Forum, organized by the Hankyoreh. The topic of her talk is to be “The deepest foundations of our democratic crisis.” Mansbridge has observed that the current political polarization is plunging democracy into a severe crisis — a crisis that could bring out bigger disasters than in the past, including potential nuclear war. Through in-person and email interviews with the Hankyoreh earlier this month, she stressed the need for more “free-use goods” to relieve political polarization, referring to concepts such as free riding, regulation, and national enforcement capabilities as an explanatory framework. According to her explanation, political polarization can only be reduced through the promise of more free-use goods that are available to all at no cost, including roads, ports, security, laws, and order. Achieving this will require capabilities for national enforcement (including taxation) and the legal legitimacy to enable fines to be assessed for violations. Underlying her perspective were her reflections on the expansion of market ideology and the dominance of ideologies that seek deregulation. In her classes at the Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mansbridge starts off each year in an unusual way. She gives the students fake $100 bills and tells them to “donate” an amount between $0 and $100. Meanwhile, she places herself in the role of a “doubling machine”: if everyone donates $100, the machine doubles the amount and gives $200 to everyone. Even if some people donate $0, everyone still receives the doubled amount of $200 as long as the others donate $100. From the perspective of any one individual, donating $0 seems to be the rational choice — but if everyone gives $0, the machine doesn’t give anything to anyone.This lesson is Mansbridge’s tool for explaining the relationship and issues between free-use goods and free riders. When a society has many free riders, it will be unable to produce many — if any — of the free-use goods that it needs. It is at this point that the government resorts to enforcement by fining the free riders. Mansbridge repeatedly stressed that she hopes more people can gain an accurate understanding of the meaning of free-use goods — a potentially difficult issue related to the legitimacy of regulatory democracy. While she did not name any particular country as offering an alternative model, she did focus on welfare states such as Denmark. In particular, she shared a story about a taxi driver she met in the country. The driver, whom she met on the way to the airport, said they paid over half their income in taxes. They also said that their tax money was being applied toward the free-use goods that made possible all the progress they could see around them, and that they understood and felt happy to be a contributor, she recalled. She went on to say that people could not experience such happiness in corrupt societies — that it is impossible in polarized societies where members view others as truly depraved individuals and cheats. Since people cannot be left to simply be ripped off, more regulations are necessary, and justification becomes increasingly more difficult, she added, describing this as a “scary” reality. Those interested in hearing Mansbridge discuss the causes and solutions to the democracy crisis can do so at Keynote Session 1, which takes place on the morning of Oct. 11 in the Grand Hall on the second basement level of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Visit the Asia Future Forum website (ww.asiafutureforum.org) to register. By Ryu Yi-geun, staff reporter  Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]   View on Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1110197.html​

Hankyoreh to host 14th Asia Future Forum on “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence”

 The forum will take place on Oct. 11 at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry Grand HallThe Hankyoreh will be hosting the Asia Future Forum on Oct. 11 as part of its ongoing quest for a better society and sustainable development. The theme of this year’s forum is “The Age of the Polycrisis: A Way to Coexistence.” While the COVID-19 pandemic may have subsided, we remain besieged by overlapping crises such as inflation, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the intensifying hegemonic rivalry between the US and China. Unfortunately, politics is being used to rally the base rather than to defuse internal conflicts, exacerbating confrontation in our society. The 14th annual Asia Future Forum seeks to bring together global luminaries who can share their wisdom as we seek a path to coexistence that runs through these various crises. On the morning of Oct. 11, the forum’s keynote address will be delivered by Jane Mansbridge on the topic of “How confrontation and exclusion threaten democracy.” Mansbridge is professor emeritus at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a recipient of the prestigious Johan Skytte Prize, which has been nicknamed the “Nobel Prize for Political Science.” The next speaker will be Graham Allison, former US assistant secretary of defense and author of “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap?” and “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Allison will be speaking at the forum on the following topic: “In an era of rising hegemony, what is South Korea’s choice?” A presentation about “The price of inequality, and who pays the bigger bill” will be made by Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. Zucman won this year’s John Bates Clark Medal, which is awarded each year to an outstanding American economist under the age of 40. Television celebrity Tyler Rasch will be delivering a special lecture at the forum about three misconceptions that must be debunked if we are to counter the threat to humanity posed by the climate crisis, as well as three actions we need to focus on. That afternoon, Parallel Session 1 will feature the Asia Policy Dialogue of the Global Social Economy Forum, which will explore the possibility of connecting and restoring communities. Parallel Session 2 will present “Korea Talks,” an experimental initiative in Korean media to discover whether it’s possible for adversaries to become friends through personal interaction. And in Parallel Session 3, Katharina Herzog, co-founder of a group called “money:care,” will deliver a presentation about the sustainability of companies that go beyond ESG washing. In addition, the Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI) developed by the UN Research Institute for Social Development will be introduced together with the results of an investigation of global companies’ sustainability performance.​   Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr] View on Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1109193.html​

Would you discuss hot topics with a total stranger? 3,000 people across the globe just did

 “The World Talks” project paired people of different backgrounds to have frank discussions about world eventsVeta (left), a 29-year-old from Russia, and Anas, a 27-year-old from Palestine, were two of the participants in “The World Talks” project on June 25. (courtesy of Die Zeit)Veta is 29 years old. She teaches English in Egypt. She is Russian. She left her home country when it invaded Ukraine. Her conscience would not let her stay in Russia.​ Anas is 27 years old. He is Palestinian. His parents lived for years in a refugee camp in Jordan. Now, his family lives in Qatar. He works for a civic organization.​Both condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, they think differently about whether every country around the world should place sanctions on Russia. Anas, who grew up in a refugee family, believes that any country that invades another deserves sanctions.​However, even though Veta has no desire to return to her home country after its invasion of Ukraine, she does not believe that all countries across the globe should coordinate sanctions on Russia. Such sanctions will only make Russian citizens suffer, she argues, which only plays into Putin’s hands.​The two also disagreed on issues regarding refugees. As someone who grew up as a refugee, Anas believes that all countries should welcome and accept refugees. However, Veta thinks differently. As a migrant living in Egypt, she believes that countries that cannot provide for their own people should not be obliged to take in refugees.  “The World Talks” was organized by the non-profit My Country Talks, and featured people from across the globe taking part in discussions with those whose views differed from their own. (from the My Country Talks website)The two, who are of different nationalities, live in different countries, and have different opinions, had the opportunity to talk for the first time on Sunday.​ They were among 5,100 people from 116 countries around the world who applied to participate in “The World Talks” project. A total of 3,084 people participated in the day of dialogue. Their story, along with those of four other participants, was featured in the German national weekly newspaper, Die Zeit.​Anas believes that the world has changed for the better over the past 20 years, but his Russian interlocutor disagrees. She believes that during the same period, her home country became increasingly oppressive.​However, the two share similar hopes and fears: Both are concerned about climate change and hope for peace in Ukraine and in the Middle East.​Organized by the global nonprofit My Country Talks, this experiment was designed to bring together thousands of people with different views on the world across borders in a single day and time.​On its website, the nonprofit stated that it planned “The World Talks” event so as to help societies around the world “connect over the issues that divide them through dialogue.”​It is an attempt to break down prejudices, for people to empathize, and to find common values through dialogue, in a world where people are becoming increasingly polarized. It could be seen as an effort made by citizens to restore fractured democracy.  The Hankyoreh partnered with My Country Talks for June 25’s “The World Talks” project. (from the My Country Talks website)Die Zeit did its first run of this experiment in 2017 under the name “Germany Talks.” Ever since, a number of German media outlets have collaborated with the newspaper and tens of thousands of Germans have participated in the project. My Country Talks is the expansion of that project at a more global scale. As of June 24, 2023, around 240,000 people from more than 30 countries had met one-on-one to exchange perspectives and bridge differences of opinion.​The process is surprisingly simple. Prospective participants answer 10 questions and are matched by an algorithm with someone who thinks differently. The two will have one conversation, either online or offline, at an agreed-upon time and place.​On Sunday’s “The World Talks,” applicants were asked questions about sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, accepting refugees, dealing with climate change, separation of church and state, and improving lives through work.​The Hankyoreh played a role in “The World Talks” as Die Zeit’s partner. Furthermore, on Oct. 11, 2023, Hankyoreh will be the first South Korean media outlet to present a Korean version of “Germany Speaks,” tentatively titled “Korea Speaks,” at the Asia Future Forum.​By Ryu Yi-geun, Hankyoreh Economy & Research Institute senior staff writer​Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]​ View on Hankyoreh: https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1097717.html​​​