ABSTRACT
Since the early 2000s, the discourse of “economic territory” has surfaced in conjunction with economic neoliberalization in South Korea. This paper argues that economic territory as a geoeconomic imaginary not only facilitated the expansion of free trade agreements as an accumulation strategy but also served as a hegemonic project which masked the nature of an accumulation strategy as a class project and consolidated political legitimacy by manipulating nationalism. To examine this linkage, it critically draws upon the idea of cultural political economy (CPE) developed by Lancaster-based sociologists Bob Jessop and Ngai-Ling Sum. This paper offers a fresh and more substantial interpretation of South Korea’s political economy and opens up new analytical space for CPE.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jin-Tae Hwang, Will Jones, Joel Wainwright, colloquium participants at the Graduate School of Science and Technology Policy, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), and the anonymous referees for their critical remarks on the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Seung-Ook Lee is an assistant professor at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. His research focuses on the geopolitics and political economy of Northeast Asia, specifically China and the Korean peninsula.
Notes
1 For a comparison of the speech transcriptions in Korean and in English by the Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea, see Lee Citation2011a, Citation2011b.
5 Edward Luttwak, a conservative scholar of international politics, coined the term “geo-economics.” He defined this as the “admixture of the logic of conflict with the methods of commerce” (Citation1990, 19) and argued that future inter-state conflicts would be governed by geoeconomic logics, which would supplant declining geopolitical imperatives. Yet, critical geographers have challenged this conception and linked it with deterritorialized economic flows and interactions. For instance, Matthew Sparke contends that “Geoeconomics … is useful as a term insofar as it allows us to name an array of quotidian assumptions and practices that emerge out of the context of free trade and the resulting force of borderless economic flows” (Citation1998, 70). But the meaning of geoeconomics should not be limited to deterritorialized economic forces; geoeconomics also means “the spatial organization of economic activity within and among nation states” (Castree, Kitchin, and Rogers Citation2013, 178, my emphasis).
15 Jessop and Sum Citation2001; Sum and Jessop Citation2013a, Citation2013b. Jessop explains that the cultural turn encompasses various methods such as “argumentation, narrativity, rhetoric, hermeneutics, identity, mentalities, conceptual history, reflexivity, historicity, and discourse” (Citation2010a, 337).
19 Jessop Citation2010a, 340. Jessop distinguishes CPE as an ontological turn from exiting approaches: “meaning-making involves not merely construal but also has constitutive, performative, or constructive effects in certain conditions” (Jessop et al. Citation2012, np).
20 Jessop Citation2010a, 342, emphasis in original. Though there are different understandings of the notion of imaginaries, I will adopt the one from Jessop: “Imaginaries are semiotic systems that frame individual subjects’ lived experience of an inordinately complex world and/or inform collective calculation about that world” (Citation2010a, 344). Yet, concomitantly, he and Sum clarify the nature of imaginaries as “not pre-given mental categories but creative products of semiotic and material practices with more or less performative power” (Citation2011, 86). In addition, van Heur Citation2010a, 431, also explicates that the coherence of imaginaries derives from a selective representation (that entails exclusion of particular elements) of the complex world.
27 For instance, Jones Citation2008 argues that CPE fails to fully incorporate both the “spatial and geographical insights of post-structuralism” and the “explanatory and causal power of Marxism” (379). He discusses the limitations of CPE using the case of the skills society in the United Kingdom. Van Heur Citation2010a, Citation2010b problematizes CPE’s excessive structuralism to downplay the social constructivist argument, that is, “the proliferation of cultural practices that are irreducible to this particular materiality” (van Heur Citation2010a, 439). On the contrary, Staricco Citation2017 criticizes Jessop and Sum’s CPE with its ontological cultural turn for privileging semiotic elements over structural and material ones. He claims that as a result, it “fails to overcome the cultural vices proper of post-structuralism or cultural studies, proving insufficient as an alternative” (339). See Jessop and Sum Citation2010, Citation2017 for their responses to van Heur and Staricco’s criticisms.
29 Jones recognizes the strength of CPE as “clearly a move away from economism, capital-centrism, productivism, and essentialism in Marxist analysis” (Citation2008, 386). I agree with him, but my argument here is that CPE is not a complete move away from economism. Although Jessop contributes an important theory of the state called the strategic-relational approach, the state is included only weakly in CPE. In a similar vein, van Heur Citation2010b claims that “the very explanatory logic of CPE links these economic imaginaries to broader dynamics of capital accumulation and regulation in an unnecessarily reductionist manner” (454).
30 For instance, Jessop Citation2002, 7, recognizes the importance of semiosis or discourse analysis for better scrutinizing hegemony, especially its function in maintaining and strengthening state legitimacy. Also, Sum explores important questions about the production of hegemony and notes the importance of economic imaginaries in the constitution of political hegemony (Citation2010, 548–549). However, her research on the notion of competitiveness never addresses these questions regarding political hegemony.
37 Kim Young Sam, who was South Korea’s first civilian president after more than thirty years’ military dictatorship, adopted an economic strategy called segyehwa (globalization). This entailed the deregulation, liberalization, and opening of the domestic economy. Eliot Kang defines segyehwa as “a set of reform measures as well as a good deal of political sloganeering to remake the Japan-inspired ‘development state’ into a market-oriented information society ready for competition in the globalized marketplaces of the post-Cold War world” (Citation2000, 77).
40 See Hart-Landsberg and Burkett Citation2001 for a discussion of the structural causes of the South Korean economic crisis and post-crisis neoliberal restructuring.
45 The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea Citation2013b, 48, my emphasis.
46 South Korea and the United States signed the KORUS-FTA on June 30, 2007. However, due to strong resistance from social and civic groups in both countries, both governments continued negotiations. It was only on March 15, 2012 that the agreements were brought into force. For further information, see each government’s website: http://trade.gov/fta/korea/ (for the U.S.); http://www.ftahub.go.kr/us/info/1/ (for Korea). See also Hart-Landsberg Citation2011 about the implications of KORUS-FTA as a new capital accumulation strategy.
54 See Shin (Citation2006) for a discussion of Korean nationalism.
57 Broder and Gerstenzang Citation1993, np. According to Hyun Ok Park, since then segyehwa (globalization) has functioned as a new hegemonic ideology (Citation2009, 123).
59 South Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, unknown date.
60 State representatives include vice ministers from the Ministries of Science, ICT, and Future Planning; Strategy and Finance; Education; Security and Public Administration; Culture, Sports, and Tourism; Health and Welfare; Environment; Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs; and Employment and Labor. Private representatives on the committee include the Chair of the Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Chair of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business, and scholars.
62 See Shin Citation2010 to understand how neoliberal globalization has affected the working class in South Korea.
63 Sun Citation2011; Park Citation2012. In a poll conducted by the Korea International Trade Association about the practical use of FTAs by small and medium businesses, only 26.3% of respondents agreed that they benefited from FTAs (Jeong Citation2013). See also Sohn Citation2012.
65 The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea Citation2013b, 48.
66 The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea Citation2013a.
67 The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea Citation2013b, 61.
68 The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea Citation2013b, 48.
76 Selective privileging always entails selective exclusion of elements that disrupt the coherence of imaginaries (van Heur Citation2010a, 431).
77 For instance, in his speech on South Korea’s fifty-seventh Memorial Day, President Lee stated, “we have further broadened our nation’s economic territory through FTAs, and our trade reached the US$1trillion mark last year. By doing so, we have turned the crisis into a stepping-stone for a new takeoff” (M. Lee Citation2012, np).
Sohn, Yul, and Min Gyo Koo. 2011. “Securitizing Trade: The Case of the Korea–US Free Trade Agreement.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (3): 433–460. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcr009 Korea Customs Service. 2012. “Press Release.” December 28. Accessed February 16, 2016: www.customs.go.kr (In Korean) Luttwak, Edward. 1990. “From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce.” The National Interest 20: 17–24. Sparke, Matthew. 1998. “From Geopolitics to Geoeconomics: Transnational State Effects in the Borderlands.” Geopolitics 3 (2): 62–98. doi: 10.1080/14650049808407619 Castree, Noel, Rob Kitchin, and Alisdair Rogers. 2013. A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, Seung-Ook, and Joel Wainwright. 2010. “Revisiting Regulation Theory for the Analysis of South Korean Capitalism.” Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea 13 (4): 562–583. doi: 10.23841/egsk.2010.13.4.562 Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Gray, Kevin. 2008. Korean Workers and Neoliberal Globalization. London: Routledge. Pirie, Iain. 2008. The Korean Developmental State: From Dirigisme to Neo-Liberalism. New York: Routledge. Park, Bae-Gyoon, Richard Child Hill, and Asato Saito. 2012. Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Aglietta, Michel. 1979. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. London: NLB. Boyer, Robert. 1990. The Regulation School: A Critical Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press. Jessop, Bob. 1990. State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in Their Place. Cambridge: Polity. Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2006. Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in Their Place. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Amin, Ash, (ed.) 1994. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessop, Bob. 1988. “Regulation Theory, Post Fordism and the State: More than a Reply to Werner Bonefield.” Capital and Class 34: 147–168. doi: 10.1177/030981688803400110 Jessop, Bob. 1995. “Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare Regime in Britain? Reflections on Regulation, Governance, and the Welfare State.” Environment and Planning A 26: 1613–1626. doi: 10.1068/a271613 Tickell, Adam, and Jamie Peck. 1992. “Accumulation, Regulation and the Geographies of Post-Fordism: Missing Links in Regulationist Research.” Progress in Human Geography 16 (2): 190–218. doi: 10.1177/030913259201600203 Lee, Seung-Ook, and Joel Wainwright. 2010. “Revisiting Regulation Theory for the Analysis of South Korean Capitalism.” Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea 13 (4): 562–583. doi: 10.23841/egsk.2010.13.4.562 Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2006. Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in Their Place. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2006. Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in Their Place. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2001. “Pre-Disciplinary and Post-Disciplinary Perspectives.” New Political Economy 6 (1): 89–101. doi: 10.1080/13563460020027777 Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2013a. “Competitiveness, the Knowledge-based Economy and Higher Education.” Journal of Knowledge Economy 4: 24–44. doi: 10.1007/s13132-012-0121-8 Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2013b. Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Putting Culture in its Place in Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2013a. “Competitiveness, the Knowledge-based Economy and Higher Education.” Journal of Knowledge Economy 4: 24–44. doi: 10.1007/s13132-012-0121-8 Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2011. “Cultural Political Economy, Strategic Essentialism, and Neo-Liberalism.” In Neoliberal Urbanism and Its Contestations: Crossing Theoretical Boundaries, edited by Jenny Künkel and Margit Mayer, 80–96. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Jessop, Bob, Agnès Labrousse, Thomas Lamarche, and Julien Vercueil. 2012. “Crossing Boundaries: Towards Cultural Political Economy.” Revue de la regulation: Capitalisme, Institutions, Pouvoirs 12. Accessed February 5, 2016: http://regulation.revues.org/9943 Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Van Heur, Bas. 2010a. “Beyond Regulation: Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Complexity and Emergence.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 421–444. doi: 10.1080/13563460903290938 Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2005. “Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Discourses, Material Power and (Counter-) Hegemony.” EU Framework 6 DEMOLOGOS SPOT PAPER. Accessed January 8, 2016: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/14554/ Fairclough, Norman, Bob Jessop, and Andrew Sayer. 2004. “Critical Realism and Semiosis.” In Realism Discourse and Deconstruction, edited by Jonathan Joseph and John Michael Roberts, 23–42. New York: Routledge. Jessop, Bob. 2010a. “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (3–4): 336–356. doi: 10.1080/19460171003619741 Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2010. “A Cultural Political Economy of Transnational Knowledge Brands: Porterian ‘Competitiveness’ Discourse and its Recontextualization in Hong Kong/Pearl River Delta.” Journal of Language and Politics 9 (4): 546–573. doi: 10.1075/jlp.9.4.05sum Jessop, Bob. 2010b. “The Knowledge Economy as a State Project.” In The Nation-State in Transformation: Economic Globalization, Institutional Mediation and Political Values, edited by M. Böss, 110–129. Århus: Aarhus University Press. Jessop, Bob. 2012b. “Economic and Ecological Crises: Green New Deals and No-Growth Economies.” Development 55 (1): 17–24. doi: 10.1057/dev.2011.104 Jones, Martin. 2008. “Recovering a Sense of Political Economy.” Political Geography 27: 377–399. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.03.003 Van Heur, Bas. 2010a. “Beyond Regulation: Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Complexity and Emergence.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 421–444. doi: 10.1080/13563460903290938 Van Heur, Bas. 2010b. “Research and Relevance: Response to Jessop and Sum.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 453–456. doi: 10.1080/13563461003789811 Van Heur, Bas. 2010a. “Beyond Regulation: Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Complexity and Emergence.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 421–444. doi: 10.1080/13563460903290938 Staricco, Juan Ignacio. 2017. “Putting Culture in its Place? A Critical Engagement with Cultural Political Economy.” New Political Economy 22 (3): 328–341. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2016.1195345 Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2010. “Cultural Political Economy: Logics of Discovery, Epistemic Fallacies, the Complexity of Emergence, and the Potential of the Cultural Turn.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 445–451. doi: 10.1080/13563461003802051 Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2017. “Putting the ‘Amsterdam School’ in its Rightful Place: A Reply to Juan Ignacio Staricco’s Critique of Cultural Political Economy.” New Political Economy 22 (3): 342–354. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2017.1286639 Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2011. “Cultural Political Economy, Strategic Essentialism, and Neo-Liberalism.” In Neoliberal Urbanism and Its Contestations: Crossing Theoretical Boundaries, edited by Jenny Künkel and Margit Mayer, 80–96. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, Martin. 2008. “Recovering a Sense of Political Economy.” Political Geography 27: 377–399. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.03.003 Van Heur, Bas. 2010b. “Research and Relevance: Response to Jessop and Sum.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 453–456. doi: 10.1080/13563461003789811 Jessop, Bob. 2002. The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity. Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2010. “A Cultural Political Economy of Transnational Knowledge Brands: Porterian ‘Competitiveness’ Discourse and its Recontextualization in Hong Kong/Pearl River Delta.” Journal of Language and Politics 9 (4): 546–573. doi: 10.1075/jlp.9.4.05sum Ribera-Fumaz, Ramon. 2004. “Creative Neoliberalisation: A Critical Study in the Cultural Political Economy of the Contemporary City.” (PhD thesis). University of Manchester. Jessop, Bob. 2008. “A Cultural Political Economy of Competitiveness and Its Implications for Higher Education.” In Education and the Knowledge-Based Economy in Europe, edited by Bob Jessop, Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak, 13–40. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Jessop, Bob, and Stijn Oosterlynck. 2008. “Cultural Political Economy: On Making the Cultural Turn Without Falling into Soft Economic Sociology.” Geoforum 39 (3): 1155–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.12.008 Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2009. “The Production of Hegemonic Policy Discourses: ‘Competitiveness’ as a Knowledge Brand and its (Re-)Contextualization.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (2): 184–203. doi: 10.1080/19460170903385668 Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2010. “A Cultural Political Economy of Transnational Knowledge Brands: Porterian ‘Competitiveness’ Discourse and its Recontextualization in Hong Kong/Pearl River Delta.” Journal of Language and Politics 9 (4): 546–573. doi: 10.1075/jlp.9.4.05sum Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2011. “Cultural Political Economy, Strategic Essentialism, and Neo-Liberalism.” In Neoliberal Urbanism and Its Contestations: Crossing Theoretical Boundaries, edited by Jenny Künkel and Margit Mayer, 80–96. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2013a. “Competitiveness, the Knowledge-based Economy and Higher Education.” Journal of Knowledge Economy 4: 24–44. doi: 10.1007/s13132-012-0121-8 Jessop, Bob. 2004. “Critical Semiotic Analysis and Cultural Political Economy.” Critical Discourse Studies 1 (2): 159–174. doi: 10.1080/17405900410001674506 Amsden, Alice. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evans, Peter. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wade, Robert. 1990. Governing the Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Woo-Cumings, Meredith, (ed.) 1999. The Developmental State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Moon, Chung-in. 2000. “In the Shadow of Broken Cheers: The Dynamics of Globalization in South Korea.” In Responding to Globalization, edited by Aseem Prakash and Jeffrey Hart, 65–94. New York: Routledge. Kang, Eliot. 2000. “Segyehwa Reform of the South Korean Developmental State.” In Korea’s Globalization, edited by Samuel Kim, 76–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shin, Jang-Sup. 2004. “South Korea: The Keynesian Recovery and the Costs of Structural Reform.” In After the Storm: Crisis, Recovery and Sustaining Development in Four Asian Economies, edited by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, 230–259. Singapore: NUS Press. Cumings, Bruce. 1998. “The Korean Crisis and the End of ‘Late’ Development.” New Left Review 341: 43–72. Hart-Landsberg, Martin, and Paul Burkett. 2001. “Economic Crisis and Restructuring in South Korea: Beyond the Free Market-Statist Debate.” Critical Asian Studies 33 (3): 403–430. doi: 10.1080/14672710122698 Dent, Christopher. 2003. “Transnational Capital, the State and Foreign Economic Policy: Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.” Review of International Political Economy 10 (2): 246–277. doi: 10.1080/0969229032000063225 Park, Sung-Hoon, and Min Gyo Koo. 2007. “Forming a Cross-Regional Partnership: The South Korea-Chile FTA and Its Implications.” Pacific Affairs 80 (2): 259–278. doi: 10.5509/2007802259 Sohn, Yul, and Min Gyo Koo. 2011. “Securitizing Trade: The Case of the Korea–US Free Trade Agreement.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (3): 433–460. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcr009 The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea. 2013b. An Administrative White Paper on the Lee Myung-bak Government Vol. 3: To Make the World Into [Our] Economic Territory. Seoul: The Government of the Republic of Korea. (In Korean) Hart-Landsberg, Martin. 2011. “Capitalism, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and Resistance.” Critical Asian Studies 43 (3): 319–348. doi: 10.1080/14672715.2011.597332 Armstrong, Charles. 2008. “Contesting the Peninsula.” New Left Review 51: 115–135. Park, Mi. 2009. “Framing Free Trade Agreements: The Politics of Nationalism in the Anti-Neoliberal Globalization Movement in South Korea.” Globalizations 6 (4): 451–466. doi: 10.1080/14747730903298694 Wainwright, Joel, and Sook-Jin Kim. 2008. “Battles in Seattle Redux: Transnational Resistance to a Neoliberal Trade Agreement.” Antipode 40 (4): 513–534. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00622.x Woo, Suk-Hoon. 2008. Bumkin (Chonnom)’s Imperialism. Seoul: Kaemagowon. (In Korean). Sohn, Yul, and Min Gyo Koo. 2011. “Securitizing Trade: The Case of the Korea–US Free Trade Agreement.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (3): 433–460. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcr009 Shin, Gi-Wook. 2006. Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jessop, Bob. 2010b. “The Knowledge Economy as a State Project.” In The Nation-State in Transformation: Economic Globalization, Institutional Mediation and Political Values, edited by M. Böss, 110–129. Århus: Aarhus University Press. Park, Hyun Ok. 2009. “The Politics of Unification and Neoliberal Democracy: Economic Cooperation and North Korean Human Rights.” In North Korea: Toward a Better Understanding, edited by Sonia Ryang, 109–128. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Harrison, James. 2013. The European Union and South Korea: The Legal Framework for Strengthening Trade, Economic and Political Relations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Cheong, Inkyo. 2009. “The Evaluation of FTA Policy in South Korea and Strengthening of Domestic System to Facilitate FTA.” Conference on the FTA trade policy in South Korea, March 17. Shin, Kwang-Yeong. 2010. “Globalisation and the Working Class in South Korea: Contestation, Fragmentation and Renewal.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 40 (2): 211–229. doi: 10.1080/00472331003597554 Harrison, James. 2013. The European Union and South Korea: The Legal Framework for Strengthening Trade, Economic and Political Relations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea. 2013b. An Administrative White Paper on the Lee Myung-bak Government Vol. 3: To Make the World Into [Our] Economic Territory. Seoul: The Government of the Republic of Korea. (In Korean) The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea. 2013a. An Administrative White Paper on the Lee Myung-bak Government, Vol. 1-12. Seoul: The Government of the Republic of Korea. (In Korean) The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea. 2013b. An Administrative White Paper on the Lee Myung-bak Government Vol. 3: To Make the World Into [Our] Economic Territory. Seoul: The Government of the Republic of Korea. (In Korean) The Presidential Office of the Republic of Korea. 2013a. An Administrative White Paper on the Lee Myung-bak Government, Vol. 1-12. Seoul: The Government of the Republic of Korea. (In Korean) Lee, Seung-Ook, Sook-Jin Kim, and Joel Wainwright. 2010. “Mad Cow Militancy: Neoliberal Hegemony and Social Resistance in South Korea.” Political Geography 29 (7): 359–369. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.07.005 Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. 2017. “Putting the ‘Amsterdam School’ in its Rightful Place: A Reply to Juan Ignacio Staricco’s Critique of Cultural Political Economy.” New Political Economy 22 (3): 342–354. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2017.1286639 Shin, Gi-Wook. 2003. “The Paradox of Korean Globalization.” Working Paper, Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. Van Heur, Bas. 2010a. “Beyond Regulation: Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Complexity and Emergence.” New Political Economy 15 (3): 421–444. doi: 10.1080/13563460903290938 Kim, Yun Tae. 1999. “Neoliberalism and the Decline of the Developmental State.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 29 (4): 441–461. doi: 10.1080/00472339980000231 Gray, Kevin. 2008. Korean Workers and Neoliberal Globalization. London: Routledge. Pirie, Iain. 2008. The Korean Developmental State: From Dirigisme to Neo-Liberalism. New York: Routledge. Additional information
Funding
Funding for this research has come from the KAIST Start-Up Research Grants for New Faculty (grant number G04160008).
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})