Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Developmental State Goes Litigious: Korea’s Pursuit of WTO Litigation

  • Chapter
Developmental States and Business Activism

Part of the book series: International Political Economy Series ((IPES))

  • 374 Accesses

Abstract

Once a part of the country’s national champion industrialization plan, conglomerates are now the pillar of Korea’s economy. Korean conglomerates are well-verse in using legal resources to protect their global business and their long-standing collaboration with the Government of Korea (“GOK” hereafter) on trade remedy issues have enhanced the GOK’s capacity and paved the way for it to become an active user of the WTO dispute settlement system. This chapter explains this transformation based on a historical analysis of Korea’s economic structure and policymaking system since the 1980s, when the country began to face mounting trade protectionism. It shows how common interests have forged GOK-conglomerate collaboration at filing WTO litigation over export restriction issues and how their collaboration has advanced over time.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Chong-Hyun Nam, “Protectionist U.S. Trade Policy and Korean Exports”, in Takatoshi Ito and Anne O. Krueger, eds., Trade and Protectionism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993): pp. 183–222.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Taeho Bark, Antidumping Restrictions against Korean Exports: Major Focus on Consumer Electronic Products (Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dukgeun Ahn, “Korea in the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: Legal Battle for Economic Development”, Journal of International Economic Law 6(3) (2003): 607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yun-han Chu, “State Structure and Economic Adjustment of the East Asian Newly Industrializing Countries”, International Organization 43(4) (1989): 647–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jung-En Woo, Race to the Swift: State and Finance in Korean Industrialization (New York: Columbia University Press: 1991); Kohli, State-Directed Development, pp. 27–126.

    Google Scholar 

  6. About chaebŏl firms’ development, see Stephan Haggard, Pathways from the Periphery: the Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bruce Cumings, “The Origins and Development of Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequence”, in Frederick Deyo, ed., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987): pp. 44–83; Woo, Race to the Swift; Kohli, State-Directed Development, pp. 27–126.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gerardo R. Ungson, Korean Enterprise: The Quest for Globalization (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Paul W. Kuznets, “Trade, Policy, and Korea-United States Relations”, Journal of Northeast Asian Studies 8(4) (Winter 1989): 24–42.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stephan Haggard, Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990): pp. 126–60.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Fred Bergsten and Il-Sa Kong, The Korea-United States Economic Relationship (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sang-young Rhyu, “The Political Economy of POSCO’s Growth: Government-Business Relations, Continuity Debate, and Rent-Seeking Behavior”, Korean Journal of Political Science 35(2) (2001): 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  13. William Hogan, POSCO Strategy: A Blueprint for World Steel’s Future (Lanham, MA: Lexington Books, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eun-mee Kim, “Globalization of South Korean Chaebol”, in Samuel S. Kim, ed., Korea’s Globalization (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 102–25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lucy Williamson, “South Korea’s Small Businesses Fight for Survival”, BBC News, 17 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news. Retrieved on 10 August 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chung Soo Kim, ed., Effects of Neo-Protectionism of the Korean Exports (Seoul: Korea Institute for Economy and Technology, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Duol Kim, Export Diversification: Lessons from Korean Experience, Working Paper (Seoul: Korea Development Institute, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Linsu Kim and Jeffrey B. Nugent, The Republic of Korea’s Small and Medium-Size Enterprises and Their Support Systems (Washington: The World Bank, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Jeffrey B. Nugent and Seung-Jae Yhee, Small and Medium Enterprises in Korea: Achievements, Constraints and Policy Issues (Washington: The World Bank, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moon-kyu Park, “Interest Representation in South Korea: The Limits of Corporatist Control”, Asian Survey 27(8) (August 1987): 904–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mark Clifford, Troubled Tiger (Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 1994): pp. 60–6.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yun-han Chu, “The State and the Development of Automobile Industry in South Korea and Taiwan”, in Joel D. Aberbach, David Dollar, and Kenneth L. Sokoloff, eds., The Role of the State in Taiwan’s Development (Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 1994): p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Carter J. Eckert, Korea Old and New: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bruce Cumings, “The Origins and Development of Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequence”, in Frederick Deyo, ed., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987): p. 44–83.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yun-Tae Kim, “Neoliberalism and the Decline of the Developmental State”, Journal of Contemporary Asia 29(4) (1999): 441–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Clifford, Troubled Tiger (Armonk: ME Sharpe, 1994): pp. 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. Michael Shafer, Winners and Losers: How Sectors Shape the Developmental Prospects of States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jongryn Mo, “A View from Abroad: The Korean Experience in Developing Public Policy Research”, in Toru Hashimoto, Stefan Hell, and Sang-Woo Nam, eds., Public Policy and Research Training in Viet Nam (Hanoi: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2005): pp. 172–213.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kim, “Neoliberalism and the Decline of the Developmental State”; Christopher M. Dent, The Foreign Economic Policies of Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan (Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar, 2003): pp. 183–86. Cited the 1991 FKI annual report, Dent wrote, by 1995 business representatives had sat on 78 advisory, consultative, and decision-making committees of the Korean cabinet.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Federation of Korean Industry, Jeongug Gyeongjein Yeonhabhoe Yeogsa Ui 30 Nyeon [The 30 Years of History of the FKI] (Seoul: Federation of Korean Industry, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Samuel S. Kim, “Korea and Globalization (Segyehwa): A Framework for Analysis”, in Samuel S. Kim, ed., Korea’s Globalization (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000): pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Barry K. Gills, “Economic Liberalization and Reform in South Korea in the 1990s: A Coming of Age or a Case of Graduation Blues?” Third World Quarterly 17(4) (1996): 667–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Min-Gyo Koo, “Embracing Free Trade Agreements, Korean Style: From Developmental Mercantilism to Developmental Liberalism”, Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 25(3) (2010): 101–23.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Min-gyo Koo, “South Korea’s FTAs: Moving from an Emulative to a Competitive Strategy”, in Mireya Solis, Barbara Stallings, and Saori N. Katada, eds., Competitive Regionalism: FTA Diffusion in the Pacific Rim (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009): pp. 181–97.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chi-wook Kim, “Toward a Multistakeholder Model of Foreign Policy Making in Korea? Big Business and Korea-US Relations”, Asian Perspective 35 (2011): 471–95.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Eun-sup Lee, “Foreign Trade Regulation of Korea in the WTO World”, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 231 (Spring 1999): 246–47.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Douglas A. Irwin, “The U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Trade Conflict”, in Anne O. Krueger, ed., The Political Economy of Trade Protection (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996): pp. 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  38. David John Blair, Trade Negotiations in the OECD: Structures, Institutions, and States (London: Kegan Paul International, 1993): pp. 216–37.

    Google Scholar 

  39. The negotiations resulted in the Agreement Respecting Normal Competitive Conditions in the Commercial Shipbuilding and Repair Industry. However, its enforcement failed due to opposition from the major US military shipyards. Kwang-seo Park and Seung-hyuk Roh, “A Study on the Background and Negotiations Around a Trade Dispute Regarding the Shipbuilding Industry of Korea and the EU”, Journal of Korea Trade Research 27(2) (2002): 405–26.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hidetaka Yoshimatsu, “U.S.-East Asian Trade Friction: Exit and Voice in the Steel Trade Regime”, Asian Affairs 30(3) (Fall 2003): 200–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zeroing refers to the practice of replacing the actual amount of dumping when it yields negative dumping margins with a value of zero prior to the final calculation of a weighted average margin of dumping for the product under investigation with respect to the exporters under investigation. Zeroing drops transactions that have negative margins and hence increases the overall dumping margins and the resulting size of the applied antidumping duty. Zeroing has been banned by the WTO with a few exceptions including the case of “target dumping.” For more information, see Chad P. Bown and Alan O. Sykes, “The Zeroing Issue: A Critical Analysis of Softwood V”, World Trade Review 7(1) (2008): 121–42.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dan Ikenson, “Zeroing in: Antidumping’s Flawed Methodology under Fire”, Cato Free Trade Bulletin 11 (27 April 2004): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Thomas J. Prusa and Edwin Vermulst, “A One-Two Punch on Zeroing: U.S.—Zeroing (EC) and U.S.—Zeroing (Japan)”, World Trade Review 8(1) (2009): 187–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University Malaysia, Malaysia

    Jessica Chia-yueh Liao (Residential Fellow)

Authors
  1. Jessica Chia-yueh Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Jessica Chia-yueh Liao

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Liao, J.Cy. (2016). The Developmental State Goes Litigious: Korea’s Pursuit of WTO Litigation. In: Developmental States and Business Activism. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137489562_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation