http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0664-7097
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The power tiller was central to the modernization of agricultural practices in East Asia during the latter part of the twentieth century. The small-scale, two-wheeled, walking-type power tiller was adapted from the European garden tractors by Japanese farmer-inventors in the 1920s, and then imported to South Korea in the early 1960s. This article traces the global technology circuit for power tillers, as well as their troublesome entry into the South Korean socioeconomic landscape in the 1960s and 1970s. Once the South Korean manufacturing industry for power tillers established itself, the agricultural machine was embroiled in a controversial political debate over landownership structures, which had profound implications for the very place of agriculture in modern South Korea. In the process of this extended debate, the social meaning of the power tiller itself went through significant change.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this article have been presented at the Society for the History of Technology annual meeting and the Tokyo Institute of Technology. The members of the audience in both venues have provided invaluable comments and suggestions. The author thanks Tae-ho Kim, Jongtae Lim, Takehiko Hashimoto, Hideto Nakajima and Victor Seow for the discussion in the process of developing the idea. Special thanks is due to Taehun Lim for suggesting that I write a short piece on South Korean power tillers as part of the ‘Techno-Culture Chronicles’ series. The editors and two anonymous reviewers of History and Technology were of great help in the final stages.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Olmstead and Rhode, Creating Abundance; idem, ‘Reshaping the Landscape.’
2. Fitzgerald, Every Farm a Factory, 3. For a more succinct exposition, see idem, ‘Beyond Tractors.’
3. Olmstead and Rhode, Creating Abundance, 8.
4. Latham, Modernization as Ideology; Cullather, The Hungry World.
5. Kim, Tae-ho. ‘Making Miracle Rice.’
6. Kyŏnghyang sinmun, 11 October 1962; Shin, ‘Land Reform in Korea’; Jang, ‘Land Reform and Capitalist Development in Korea.’
7. This is a theme developed in Choi, ‘The Social Construction of Imported Technologies.’ For the usage of the term ‘innovation’ as ‘creation of the new’ in the earlier stages of technological life cycles, see Russell and Vinsel, ‘After Innovation, Turn to Maintenance,’ 4.
8. Yun and Kim, 2012 Modularization of Korea’s Development Experience, 181–182. For an analysis of the Knowledge Sharing Program, see Doucette and Müller, ‘Exporting the Saemaul Spirit.’
9. Langmore, ‘Howard, Arthur Clifford (1893–1971).’
10. Hooijberg, ‘Konrad von Meyenburg’; Pitts and Park, ‘Effects of Rototiller Adoption,’ 2, copy courtesy of David Nemeth.
11. In the United States, the most well-known models included the Midwest Utilitor (Midwest Engine Company, Indianapolis) and Beeman (New Beeman Tractor Company, Minneapolis). ‘Old Iron Garden Tractors.’
12. Matsumoto, Technology Gatekeepers for War and Peace, 16–19; Lynn, How Japan Innovates.
13. Note that the Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture did not consider the Fordson tractor, which was already quite popular not only in the United States, but also in England and the Soviet Union.
14. Kako, ‘Development of the Farm Machinery Industry in Japan,’ 157; Wada, Kōunki tanjo, 69–107.
15. Hirose is regarded as a kind of folk hero in his hometown of Hakusan. Hakusan City, ‘Hirose Yokichi.’
16. Kako, ‘Development of the Farm Machinery Industry in Japan,’ 158, 164.
17. Tonga ilbo, 4 February 1938, 6.
18. Horio, ‘Nōgyō, ringyō, gyogyō,’ 322.
19. Takashi Nishiyama, Engineering War and Peace in Modern Japan, 1868–1964.
20. Kako, ‘Development of the Farm Machinery Industry in Japan,’ 164–166.
21. Hall, ‘Hand-Tractors in Japanese Paddy Fields.’
22. Ibid, 320.
23. Pak, Wŏnhyŏnggwa pyŏnyong.
24. Pitts and Park, ‘Effects of Rototiller Adoption,’ 2–3.
25. Pitts, ‘Sliding Sideways into Geography,’ 269. For more details on the activities of Pitts in Japan and South Korea, see Fujihara, Torakutā no sekaishi, 197–199; Sensui, ‘Amerikajin chirigakusha ni yoru reisenki Higashi Ajia no firudo chōsa.’
26. Pitts and Park, ‘Effects of Rototiller Adoption,’ 1.
27. Tonga ilbo, 20 August 1960, 2.
28. Kyŏnghyang sinmun, 15 February 1962, 1; Tonga ilbo, 16 February 1962.
29. Lee, ‘The Countryside,’ 347.
30. Eckert, Park Chung Hee and Modern Korea.
31. Taedong samsibonyŏnsa p’yŏnch’an wiwŏnhoe ed., Taedong samsibonyŏnsa, 137, 151. (Hereafter cited as Taedong samsibonyŏnsa.)
32. Ibid, 149.
33. Kim, Kigongilsaeng, 100–101.
34. Taedong samsibonyŏnsa, 157–158, 277. Mitsubishi was also initially reluctant to entertain Taedong’s request, citing the lack of formal diplomatic ties between South Korea and Japan as an excuse. According to the official company history, Kim roared to the Mitsubishi representative: ‘How can a great company like Mitsubishi not see that the normalization of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan is imminent? You need to have foresight!’.
35. Ibid, 183–185. The Mitsubishi-Taedong agreement was reported in Tonga ilbo, 3 January 1963. The article claims that only 60 percent of the total number of parts would be imported.
36. Nongsusanbu, Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa paltal kwajŏng, 160–162. (Hereafter cited as Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa.)
37. Mitsubishi began to place advertisements for its power tillers in South Korean newspapers as early as June 1962, around the time when it was beginning to negotiate the technology licensing agreement with Taedong, with the catchphrase ‘The Way to Increase Yield!’ The ad listed Sin Asea Corporation as Mitsubishi’s local sales agent. Tonga ilbo, 17 June 1962. After the release of the first Taedong products in March 1963, Taedong Industries was listed prominently as Mitsubishi’s partner. Tonga ilbo, 25 May 1963.
38. Taedong samsibonyŏnsa, 191.
39. Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa, 163–165.
40. Brazinsky, ‘From Pupil to Model,’ 109–110.
41. In May 1966, the Vietnamese embassy in South Korea sent a request to the Korea Ministry of Commerce and Industry for information on production capacities, specifications, and prices of power tillers, power sprayers, and water pumps. Maeil kyŏngje, 9 May 1967, 4.
42. Maeil kyŏngje, 4 August 1967, 4.
43. Taedong samsibonyŏnsa, 180. Taedong was not entering a blank slate in South Vietnam. As historian David Biggs points out, there was a ‘post-1960 explosion in the use of small motors,’ some of which were power tillers imported from Japan. See Biggs, ‘Small Machines in the Garden.’
44. Taedong samsibonyŏnsa, 474–484.
45. Ibid, 191.
46. According to the sociologist Yong-Ha Shin, the Land Reform Act of 1950 ‘fundamentally changed the whole structure of Korean rural community’ by abolishing the ‘land tenure system and parasitic absentee landlords.’ Shin, ‘Land Reform in Korea,’ 27–28.
47. Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa, 165.
48. Ibid, 327.
49. Maeil kyŏngje, 20 June 1966, 4; Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa, 253. Annual income per rural household in 1967 was 149,500 won. The gap between the power tiller price and annual household income would shrink during the next few years, and income would eventually catch up with the price in 1972.
50. Kyŏnghyang sinmun, 15 February 1965, 2; Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa, 187.
51. Taedong samsibonyŏnsa, 255.
52. Han’guk nongŏpkigyehwa, 260–261.
53. Cho, ‘1960yŏndae nongŏpkujo kaehyŏngnonŭiwa kŭ hamŭi.’
54. See, for example, Kyŏnghyang sinmun, 2 May 1966, 2; Tonga ilbo, 25 December 1968, 2; Maeil kyŏngje, 28 October 1969, 3.
55. Maeil kyŏngje, 28 October 1969, 3. Note that the estimated work capacity of power tillers have shrunk significantly from the 120–160 hectares figure assessed by the AEUI engineers in 1966. The order-of-magnitude discrepancy speaks volumes to the inherent arbitrariness of determining the proper ‘work capacity’ of power tillers. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that both figures are well above the 3 hectares landownership ceiling.
56. Han’guk kwahakkisul yŏn’guso, Sŏgi 2000yŏnŭi Han’guge kwanhan chosa yŏn’gu, 31. Emphasis added.
57. Cho and Hwang, ‘Nongŏpkujojojŏngŭi chwajŏlgwa sodŭkchŏngch’aegŭroŭi chŏnhwan.’
58. Kyŏnghyang sinmun, 1 June 1967, 4.
59. Kyŏnghyang sinmun, 22 June 1968, 1. As Ronald Kline and Trevor Pinch have shown, users of technologies frequently appropriate technologies for purposes not intended by their producers. Although in the case of the power tiller, users were not involved in ‘shap[ing] the artifact or system itself.’ See Kline and Pinch, ‘Users as Agents of Technological Change.’
60. Nongnimbu Nongŏp kyŏngyŏng yŏn’guso, ‘Nongŏpkigyehwae kwanhan yŏn’gu,’ 65. See also Tonga ilbo, 26 March 1971, 3, in which the journalist noted that ‘a portion of the power tillers flowed into the hands of coal briquette dealers or cement businessmen through brokers.’
61. ‘Nongŏp kigyehwa kyehoek.’
62. Ibid.
63. Kyŏngje che-1, ‘Nongch’on kigyehwa kyehoek.’
64. Maeil kyŏngje, 26 March 1974, 3.
65. Maeil kyŏngje, 21 June 1974, 7.
66. Nongŏp kigyehwa yŏn’guso, ‘Tongnyŏk kyŏngun’gi iyonge kwanhan chosa yŏn’gu,’ 94.
67. Kim Chŏng-hwan, ‘Kyŏngun’girŭl t’ago.’
68. Edgerton, The Shock of the Old, xiii.
69. The classic account is Kim, Imitation to Innovation.