The "Late Blooming" of the South Korean labor movement

Monthly Review

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 117-129

  Sonn, Hochul ^a  

^a Sogang University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0343454629     PISSN: 00270520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14452/MR-049-03-1997-07_8     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. See for instance Edward Mason et al., Economic and Social Modernization in the Republic of Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980).
2. For the effect of the division, see Paik Nak-chung, "South Korea: Unification and the Democratic Challenge," New Left Review, no. 197 (Jan./Feb. 1993).
3. Choi Jang-Jip, Interest Conflict and Political Control in South Korea, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago (1983); Frederic Deyo, "State and Labor: Modes of Political Exclusion in East Asian Development," in F. Deyo ed. The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).
4. Choi Jang-Jip, Interest Conflict and Political Control in South Korea, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago (1983); Frederic Deyo, "State and Labor: Modes of Political Exclusion in East Asian Development," in F. Deyo ed. The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).
5. On the Kwangju events, see Donald Clark ed., The Kwangju Uprisings (Boulder: Westview, 1988).
6. I have discussed the failure of this labor reform in a paper entitled "State and Civil Society in Korea: A Reappraisal," presented at the Georgetown Conference on Korea II, May 1995.
7. For the model of "dependent fordism" (though not "dependent post-fordism"), see Alan Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles (London: Verso, 1987). These models have some descriptive value, although there is a substantial body of literature critical of the "Regulation School" from which the concept of "dependent fordism" derives. See, for example, Daniel Cataife, "Fordism and the French Regulation School," Monthly Review, May 1989; Robert Brenner, "The Regulation Approach: Theory and History," New Left Review, July/August 1991; Richard Gunn, "Marxism, Metatheory and Critique," in W. Bonefeld et al., eds., Post-fordism and Social Form (London: Macmillan, 1991). have critically examined the applicability of "fordism" and "post-fordism" to the Third World, including South Korea, in "A Critical Assessment of Strategic-Relational Theory of the State," in a paper delivered (in Korean) at the Conference on "The Achievements and Tasks of Modern State Theories," Korean Political Science Association, 1994.
8. For the model of "dependent fordism" (though not "dependent post-fordism"), see Alan Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles (London: Verso, 1987). These models have some descriptive value, although there is a substantial body of literature critical of the "Regulation School" from which the concept of "dependent fordism" derives. See, for example, Daniel Cataife, "Fordism and the French Regulation School," Monthly Review, May 1989; Robert Brenner, "The Regulation Approach: Theory and History," New Left Review, July/August 1991; Richard Gunn, "Marxism, Metatheory and Critique," in W. Bonefeld et al., eds., Post-fordism and Social Form (London: Macmillan, 1991). have critically examined the applicability of "fordism" and "post-fordism" to the Third World, including South Korea, in "A Critical Assessment of Strategic-Relational Theory of the State," in a paper delivered (in Korean) at the Conference on "The Achievements and Tasks of Modern State Theories," Korean Political Science Association, 1994.
9. For the model of "dependent fordism" (though not "dependent post-fordism"), see Alan Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles (London: Verso, 1987). These models have some descriptive value, although there is a substantial body of literature critical of the "Regulation School" from which the concept of "dependent fordism" derives. See, for example, Daniel Cataife, "Fordism and the French Regulation School," Monthly Review, May 1989; Robert Brenner, "The Regulation Approach: Theory and History," New Left Review, July/August 1991; Richard Gunn, "Marxism, Metatheory and Critique," in W. Bonefeld et al., eds., Post-fordism and Social Form (London: Macmillan, 1991). have critically examined the applicability of "fordism" and "post-fordism" to the Third World, including South Korea, in "A Critical Assessment of Strategic-Relational Theory of the State," in a paper delivered (in Korean) at the Conference on "The Achievements and Tasks of Modern State Theories," Korean Political Science Association, 1994.
10. For the model of "dependent fordism" (though not "dependent post-fordism"), see Alan Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles (London: Verso, 1987). These models have some descriptive value, although there is a substantial body of literature critical of the "Regulation School" from which the concept of "dependent fordism" derives. See, for example, Daniel Cataife, "Fordism and the French Regulation School," Monthly Review, May 1989; Robert Brenner, "The Regulation Approach: Theory and History," New Left Review, July/August 1991; Richard Gunn, "Marxism, Metatheory and Critique," in W. Bonefeld et al., eds., Post-fordism and Social Form (London: Macmillan, 1991). have critically examined the applicability of "fordism" and "post-fordism" to the Third World, including South Korea, in "A Critical Assessment of Strategic-Relational Theory of the State," in a paper delivered (in Korean) at the Conference on "The Achievements and Tasks of Modern State Theories," Korean Political Science Association, 1994.
11. For the model of "dependent fordism" (though not "dependent post-fordism"), see Alan Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles (London: Verso, 1987). These models have some descriptive value, although there is a substantial body of literature critical of the "Regulation School" from which the concept of "dependent fordism" derives. See, for example, Daniel Cataife, "Fordism and the French Regulation School," Monthly Review, May 1989; Robert Brenner, "The Regulation Approach: Theory and History," New Left Review, July/August 1991; Richard Gunn, "Marxism, Metatheory and Critique," in W. Bonefeld et al., eds., Post-fordism and Social Form (London: Macmillan, 1991). have critically examined the applicability of "fordism" and "post-fordism" to the Third World, including South Korea, in "A Critical Assessment of Strategic-Relational Theory of the State," in a paper delivered (in Korean) at the Conference on "The Achievements and Tasks of Modern State Theories," Korean Political Science Association, 1994.
12. I discuss this at greater length in the paper cited in note 5.
13. For the difference between state corporatism and societal corporatism, see Philippe Schmitter, "Still the Century of Corporatism?," in F. Pike et al. eds., The New Corporatism (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1974).
14. Richard Falk, "The Making of Global Citizenship," in John Brechter et al. eds., Global Visions (Boston: Southend Press, 1993).
15. See for instance Kim Moody, An Injury to All: The Decline of American Unionism (London: Verso, 1988).