[1] A History of Korea's Economy.

An Op-Ed that details a brief history of Korea's economy and the nation's relentless disregard for sacrifice.

When I was younger, I often imagined living in the United States. I’m not sure if it was the influx of American media, the impact of attending an international school, or the general dissatisfaction with Korea that led me to this desire. I just imagined myself strolling through a dark alley in between the American skyscrapers of New York to buy a can of American soda from an American vending machine.

I remember being surprised when I found out that Korea had one of the world’s highest GDPs. I guess I wondered how this country, which didn’t offer overnight deliveries from Amazon and lacked a consistent supply of Dr. Pepper, could be, for lack of a better word, rich.

Likewise, I think it’s natural for Koreans to be cynical about their country. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a lack of national pride; instead, it’s the cultural desire for perfection and the inclination to demonstrate harsh disapproval.

By the end of the first half of the twentieth century, Korea was a shithole. My grandmother tells me about the struggles of living in poverty — the inconvenience of not having access to proper plumbing to the intuitive cooking techniques required to make the most out of the available food. My grandmother notes how people were desperate for change; a better living and economic growth was the only remedy for their predicament.

Park Chung-hee, the third president of South Korea, is known for his contributions to the country’s economy; this series of economic reforms that contributed to Korea’s rapid economic growth and industrialization is known as The Miracle on the Han River. Park's eventual downfall represents Korea's unwillingness to forgive those who force them to sacrifice, no matter the results.

Most of Park’s achievements were enabled through large-scale projects that required the development of national institutions; essentially, Park ensured that Korea would generate a solid foundation to build its economy on for the decades to come. He created a special industrial development zone in Ulsan, which initiated Korea’s export-oriented industrialization. He established the state-owned Pohang Iron and Steel Company to provide cheap resources for conglomerates. Under Park’s leadership, extreme poverty in South Korea reduced from 66.9% in 1961 to 11.2% in 1979, making it one of the largest and fastest reductions in poverty in all of human history.

Despite his influence on the country’s growth, Park was not absolved of hate. A frequent trend in Korea’s macroeconomic policy is sacrifice. The notion that progress comes at the cost of pleasure is well-represented throughout Korea’s modern history. The people had made sacrifices to their civil liberties and human rights to fund Park’s policies; there was no minimum wage, there were no trade unions, and there was no democracy.

Though these conditions seem inhumane in retrospect, the public tends to forget the circumstances of the time. People were desperate. I’d argue that without these drastic policies, my motherland would not have been able to establish the foundation for its thriving economy. Unfortunately, once people get accustomed to comfort, they avoid sacrificing it at any cost. Following a large protest against Park’s authoritarian rule, the former president was eventually assassinated by the KCIA (Korean Central Intelligence Agency).

Roh Tae-woo, the sixth president of South Korea, aimed to achieve economic growth alongside income equity. Roh’s legacy is cemented by large-scale infrastructure projects, including the construction of Incheon International Airport and the Korea Train Express (KTX). Despite his contributions, Roh was arrested on charges of bribery, mutiny, and treason. Roh’s trial marks the second time that the Korean people would impede the nation’s betterment in their efforts to penalize their leaders out of their standards for political perfection.

Kim Dae-jung, the eighth president of South Korea, announced the gold-collecting campaign, a national sacrificial movement that aimed to repay the nation’s debt to the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Around 3.51 million Koreans participated in this campaign, donating approximately 225 tons of gold, ranging from jewelry to family heirlooms.

Kim recognized the sacrifice of the ordinary Joe and forced conglomerates to decrease their loans to ensure that Korea could repay the IMF three years before it was due. The gold-collecting campaign was met with unprecedented enthusiasm; as a result, Korea recovered from its financial crisis and re-established itself as an economic superpower. The universal support for Kim from the population reveals that Korea is capable of achieving monumental economic development, given that the people are willing to serve their country through sacrifice.

Today, my motherland makes money by exporting its semiconductors, cars, home appliances, and other technologies. This was just another step in refurbishing Korea’s economy. This time, the people were expected to sacrifice their quality of life to ensure Korea’s presence in international trade. Over the last few years, it has been clear that the nation appreciates the sacrifice their people have made. There are more things to do and more places to visit.

And yet, the people demand retribution. They had sacrificed their quality of life, and they ordered it back. The country had lowered the maximum workweek from 68 hours to 52. The younger generation believes that they deserve payment for their temporary sacrifices, while the older generation clamor for the preservation of the status quo; after all, the older generation had worked so far for the betterment of their country, and, to them, it is only natural that the younger generation do the same.

When it comes to national renovations, you need radical change. You need a clear vision that must be achieved, no matter what. A shit plan that’s perfectly executed is far more favorable than a perfect plan that’s shittily executed. When the shit plan is completed, some progress will have been made; consequently, more progress will be ensured.

I feel that there needs to be a balance struck between these contrasting philosophies. Of course, improving our country’s foundation and global prominence will enable potential growth in the future; that being said, if promises for growth are not met, then economic progress is in vain. I think that we mustn’t let neither national pride in our country’s economic prominence nor hedonistic tendencies dictate our capability to sacrifice and affect the course of our country and its people.