Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Quality of Democracy in Korea pp 147–173Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in South Korea: Public Opinion and Electoral Politics, 1997–2012

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Critical Studies of the Asia-Pacific ((CSAP))

Abstract

Elections as a core institution of democracy may be a crucial channel for politicizing inequality issues by granting equal political rights to the majority. However, electoral politics may also serve to systematically exclude and distort the majority opinion of the public. This chapter focuses on the question of policy responsiveness and electoral accountability as an essential element of assessing the quality of democracy, and investigates the case of South Korea for the period 1997–2012 in terms of the relationship between the trends of public opinion about economic inequality and insecurity on the one hand and the decisive issues in the presidential elections on the other. The results show that although the majority opinion of the public has consistently considered the alleviation of economic inequality and insecurity to be the first priority of politics, the electoral competitions have been dominated by personality or event issues and that, after the election, the widespread dissatisfaction of the public has continued. This study shows that if the quality of democracy is low, an election can be a mechanism that prevents inequality issues from being central to the political agenda, while maintaining the facade of democratic representation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Democracy, Redistribution and Inequality (NBER Working Paper, No. 19746). National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D., & Pérez-Liñán, A. (2002). Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries. Democratization, 9(2), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal Democracy. The Political Economy of the New Golded Age. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beramendi, P., & Anderson, C. J. (2008). Income Inequality and Democratic Representation. In P. Beramendi & C. J. Anderson (Eds.), Democracy, Inequality, and Representation. A Comparative Perspective. London: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007). Why Welfare States Persist. The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Castles, F. G. (1978). The Social Democratic Image of Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, J. Y. (2012). Various Compositions of Income and Their Impacts on Inequality. Trends and Prospects, 85, 131–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, B. Y. (2014). Employment Policy of Democratic Governments: Achievements, Limitations, and Alternatives. In B. C. Lee & J. W. Shin (Eds.), What Have the Ten Years of the Democratic Governments Left? The 1997 Regime and the Transformation of Korean Society. Seoul: Humanitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, B. Y., & Shin, J. W. (2014). Are Low-Incomes More Likely to Be Politically Conservative? Party Support and Policy Attitudes by Income in South Korea, 2003–2012. Trends and Prospects, 91, 9–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croissant, A. (2010). Analyse defekter Demokratien. In K. H. Schrenk & M. Soldner (Eds.), Analyse demokratischer Regierungssysteme. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutright, P. (1965). Political Structure, Economic Development, and National Social Security Programs. American Journal of Sociology, 70(5), 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Introduction. In L. Diamond & L. Morlino (Eds.), Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ersson, S., & Lane, J. E. (1996). Democracy and Development: A Statistical Exploration. In A. Leftwich (Ed.), Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1985). Politics Against Markets. The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F., Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (2012). Poverty, Inequality, and Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garzia, D. (2011). The Personalization of Politics in Western Democracies: Causes and Consequences on Leader-Follower Relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2008). Development, Democracy and Welfare States. Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, G. Y. (2011). Progressive vs. Conservative President. Seoul: Politeia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig, T., & Samuels, D. (2007). Electoral Accountability and the Variety of Democratic Regimes. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A. I., & Merkle, S. (2014). The Personalization of Politics in Comparative Perspective: Campaign Coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication, 29(2), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2006). Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1994). Studying Substantive Democracy. PS: Political Science and Politics, 27(1), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Y. J. (2008). Understanding the Swing Voters by Differentiating the ‘Swing Voter Groups’. In H. W. Lee & H. Y. Kwon (Eds.), Changing Korean Voters 2: A Panel Study of the 2007 Presidential Election. Seoul: EAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaase, M. (1994). Is There Personalization in Politics? Candidates and Voting Behavior in Germany. International Political Science Review, 15(3), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, W. T. (2008). Has the Regionalism Changed? In H. W. Lee & H. Y. Kwon (Eds.), Changing Korean Voters 2: A Panel Study of the 2007 Presidential Election. Seoul: EAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, W. T. (2013). Social Classes and Voting Choices. In C. W. Park & W. T. Kang (Eds.), Analyzing the 2012 Presidential Election. Paju: Nanam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S. W. (2014). Changes in Income Inequality During the Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-hyun Government. In B. C. Lee & J. W. Shin (Eds.), What Have the Ten Years of Democratic Governments Left? The 1997 Regime and the Transformation of Korean Society. Seoul: Humanitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. (2014). Ten Years of Democratic Governments: Size and Situations of Non-regular Workers. In B. C. Lee & J. W. Shin (Eds.), What Have the Ten Years of Democratic Governments Left? The 1997 Regime and the Transformation of Korean Society. Seoul: Humanitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, W. (1983). The Democratic Class Struggle. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H. (2011). Personalization of National Election Campaigns. Party Politics, 18(6), 825–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, H. Y. (2008). Economic Voting in the 2007 Presidential Election. In H. W. Lee & H. Y. Kwon (Eds.), Changing Korean Voters 2: A Panel Study of the 2007 Presidential Election. Seoul: EAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. W. (2006). Issues and Candidate Strategies in the 16th Presidential Election. In S. Y. Eo (Ed.), Elections in Korea V: The 16th Presidential Election and the 17th Parliamentary Election. Seoul: Oreum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. W., & Lee, S. L. (2001). Recent Trends in Inequality of Household Wealth in South Korea. Labor Policy Research, 1, 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew, J. S., Song, B. K., & Hong, J. Y. (2008). Who are the Economic Voters? Analysis of Socioeconomic Factors. In C. W. Park (Ed.), Analyzing the 17th Presidential Election. Seoul: Saenggaguinamu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. (1990). The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1959). Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllista, I. (2007). The Personalization of Politics. In R. J. Dalton & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and Defective Democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, W. (2010). Are Dictatorships Returning? Revising the ‘Democratic Rollback’ Hypothesis. Contemporary Politics, 16(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morlino, L. (2004). ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Democracies: How to Conduct Research into the Quality of Democracy. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morlino, L., Dressel, B., & Pelizo, R. (2011). The Quality of Democracy in Asia-Pacific: Issues and Findings. International Political Science Review, 32(5), 491–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, S. S. (2009). Decomposition of Inequality and Distribution of Household Wealth in Korea. Economic Research, 27(2), 59–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, B., et al. (Eds.). (2014). Changing Inequalities & Social Impacts in Rich Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G. (1996). Illusions About Consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W. (2013). The Characteristics of the 2012 Presidential Election. In C. W. Park & W. T. Kang (Eds.), Analyzing the 2012 Presidential Election. Paju: Nanam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poguntke, T., & Webb, P. (Eds.). (2007). The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, B. G., Jr. (2005). The Chain of Responsiveness. In L. Diamond & L. Morlino (Eds.), Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., & Sprague, J. (1986). Paper Stones. A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2010). The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe. Public Preferences and Policy Reforms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing Accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Bounder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirowy, L., & Inkeles, A. (1991). The Effects of Democracy on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Review. In A. Inkeles (Ed.), On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklar, R. L. (1996). Towards a Theory of Developmental Democracy. In A. Leftwich (Ed.), Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepan, A., & Linz, J. J. (2011). Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 9(4), 841–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1988). Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland. In M. Weber (Ed.), Gesammelte Politische Schriften. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) [1918].

    Google Scholar 

  • Wi, P. R. (2013). Assessment of the Five Years of the Lee Myung-bak Government and Their Implication for the Park Geun-Hye Government (Economic Reform Report, No. 2013-2). Economic Reform Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, J. Y., & Kang, C. G. (2013). Issue Voting in the 18th Presidential Election. In C. W. Park, J. Y. Kim, & J. Y. Woo (Eds.), The Choice of Korean Voters 2: The 18th Presidential Election. Seoul: Asan Institute for Public Policies.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea

    Jin-Wook Shin

Authors
  1. Jin-Wook Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of East Asian Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Hannes B. Mosler

  2. Institute of Korean Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Eun-Jeung Lee

  3. Institute for Peace and Unification Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Hak-Jae Kim

Appendix: Opinion Surveys Cited

Appendix: Opinion Surveys Cited

No.

Research institution

Survey date

Samples

Sampling

method

Survey method

Sampling error

(confidence level = 95%)

1

Gallup Korea

1990. 7. 20 ~

1990. 7. 30

1500 adult men and women nationwide (except Jeju)

Multistage

Face-to-face

±2.5

2

Gallup Korea

1990. 7. 13 ~

1990. 7. 17

1500 adult men and women nationwide (except Jeju)

Multistage

Face-to-face

±2.5

3

Gallup Korea

1999. 12. 23

1557 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide (except Jeju)

Random

Telephone

±2.5

4

Gallup Korea

2000. 8. 23

1026 adult men and women aged over 20 nationwide (except Jeju)

Random

Telephone

±3.0

5

Gallup Korea

2002. 12. 24

1063 adult men and women aged over 20 nationwide

Random

Telephone

±3.0

6

Gallup Korea

2003. 6. 7

642 adult men and women aged over 20 nationwide

Random

Telephone

±3.8

7

Gallup Korea

2004. 2. 21

1036 adult men and women aged over 20 nationwide

Random

Telephone

±3.0

8

Gallup Korea

2006. 6. 16 ~

2006. 6. 30

1507 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide (except Jeju)

Random

Face-to-face

±2.5

9

SBS, Joongang Daily, EAI, Hankuk Research

2007. 4. 25 ~

2007. 12. 27

First panel: 3503 adult men and women (sample retention rate = 60.3%)

Quota

CATI

±2.1

10

Realmeter

2006. 12. 20

736 adult men and women nationwide

–

Telephone

±3.6

11

Realmeter

2007. 12. 5 ~

2007. 12. 6

1000 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide

–

CATI

±3.1

12

Realmeter

2007. 12. 19

1000 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide

–

ACS

±3.1

13

Realmeter

2007. 12. 26

500 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide

–

ACS

±4.4

14

Korean Society Opinion Institute

2009. 7. 13

700 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide

–

Telephone

±3.7

15

Asan Institute for Policy Studies

2012. 4. 6 ~

2012. 12. 30

1st panel = 3062 adult men and women nationwide

Stratified

CATI

±1.77~±1.94

16

Hankuk Research

2012. 12. 31 ~

2013. 1. 16

1200 adult men and women aged over 19 nationwide

Proportionate quota

Telephone

±2.8

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shin, JW. (2018). Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in South Korea: Public Opinion and Electoral Politics, 1997–2012. In: Mosler, H., Lee, EJ., Kim, HJ. (eds) The Quality of Democracy in Korea. Critical Studies of the Asia-Pacific. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63919-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation