<html><div style='background-color:'><P>Dear Aidan,</P>
<P>I found something useful that makes the point I am getting at. I guess my point is that when people talk about inequality in Korea they are often talking about the situation in Seoul. In terms of land ownership, which Koreans consider as the most important investment avenue (in my opinion), Korea is close to perfectly unequal. Also Gangnam receives a large share of investment (somewhat related to higher land tax). I provide an excerpt from a study of this problem (link below):</P>
<P>...</P>
<P>3. Occupation is not a unique cause of social polarization<BR>So far social polarization has mainly been approached in relation to occupational structure. Its<BR>basic logic is that occupational distribution among the population results in income inequality,<BR>and income inequality results in social polarization. There is an approach that social polarization<BR>is seen as a process bound up with the emergence of the so-called global city (Baun, 1997;<BR>Doring, et al., 1996). That is to say, the occupational structure of major growth industries in<BR>global cities has created and contributed to the growth of a high-income stratum and a<BR>low-income stratum of workers. Ultimately, ¡®global city¡¯ arguments focus on polarization within<BR>occupational hierarchy. Hamnett (1994a, 1994b) criticized this ¡®global city¡¯ thesis, but his<BR>argument for ¡®professionalisation¡¯ is also
related to occupational structure.<BR>Recent social polarization in South Korea is certainly connected with occupational structure<BR>including unemployment. Employment is separated into a small number of high-income<BR>professional jobs and a large number of low-income jobs by flexible strategies of capital, and<BR>there is a significant increase in long-term unemployment and part-time jobs in the process of<BR>economic reform.<BR>However, there is a limit to explaining social polarization in South Korea with only ¡®the global<BR>city¡¯ thesis or occupational structure. Polarization of occupation is one of the causes for income<BR>inequality. But asset inequality should be considered more problematic in Korean society,<BR> <BR>34 <BR>because it is a major culprit in the deepening of income inequality. Inequality in asset ownership<BR>invites a vicious cycle between the rich and the
poor. According to a report by Lee (2000), the<BR>Gini coefficient of wage income recorded an average of 0.286 after the currency crisis, while the<BR>Gini coefficient of asset income was a high 0.535 on average (see Table 3).<BR>That is, inequality in wage income is lower than that in total income. In contrast, the degree of<BR>asset income inequality is much higher than that in total income. In addition, considering the fact<BR>that urban workers do not possess much, even if the Korean economy has more or less an<BR>equalized wage income distribution, it is difficult to completely solve the income inequality.<BR>In particular, the inequality is the highest in real estate property such as land, buildings and<BR>homes. That inequality in land ownership is estimated using the 1998 land tax data. The Gini<BR>coefficient is 0.875, which is close to perfect inequality. The top 1% of the
Korean population<BR>owns 41% of the land and the top 8.5% of the population owns 76% of the total land in the<BR>country. On the contrary, 54.5% of the adult population does not own land at all.</P>
<P>...</P>
<P><A href="http://www.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/geo/pdf/frombelow/0308_frombelow_yim.pdf#search=%22gini%20coefficient%20seoul%22">http://www.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/geo/pdf/frombelow/0308_frombelow_yim.pdf#search=%22gini%20coefficient%20seoul%22</A></P>
<P><BR><BR>Warm regards,</P>
<P>Paul Shepherd<BR></P>
<DIV>
<P>===============================================</P>
<P>Paul Shepherd</P>
<P>Ph.D Candidate</P>
<P>Graduate School of The College of Law, Seoul National University</P>
<P>Mobile: (ROK) 010-7217-7675</P>
<P>===============================================</P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
From: <I>Ruediger Frank <rfrank@koreanstudies.de></I><BR>Reply-To: <I>Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws></I><BR>To: <I>Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws></I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: [KS] How unequal is South Korea, really?</I><BR>Date: <I>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:39:34 +0200</I><BR>>Dear Aidan,<BR>><BR>>far from telling the whole story, here's what economics tell us. The <BR>>usual index for (in)equality is the Gini coefficient. It has values <BR>>between 0 (perfect equality) and 1 (perfect inequality). Don't want <BR>>to bore you with the details; if interested, just check out <BR>>Wikipedia. The Gini coefficient for SKorea is pretty low - around <BR>>0.31, for Taiwan it is around 0.33, Singapore had 0.42 in 1998. <BR>>Korea does pretty well if compared to, for example, the USA (0.408), <BR>>Germany
(0.382), the UK (0.36) or France (0.327).<BR>><BR>>Vincento Spiezia (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/0/15179780.doc) <BR>>did interesting research on geographic income distribution that <BR>>provides some kind of alternative/supplement to the Gini <BR>>coefficient. By the way, he mentions Korea as one of the few cases <BR>>in the OECD where geographic concentration of production mainly <BR>>reflects concentration of population.<BR>><BR>>Interestingly, disparity in regional income distribution in Europe <BR>>is highest in the UK, Belgium, Germany and France, and lowest in <BR>>Poland, Portugal, Greece and Ireland (since you're Irish, you might <BR>>want to check out <BR>>http://www.forfas.ie/ncc/reports/ncc_annual_05/ch02/ch02_01.html)<BR>><BR>>To make it short, I guess the low Gini coefficient is one reason why <BR>>Korea is said to be
highly egalitarian. My limited personal <BR>>experience supports this view. I guess Koreans just sometimes have <BR>>that tendency to downplay their own successes (or to overemphasize <BR>>them at other instances). It's a country of extremes - but not for <BR>>Mr. Gini.<BR>><BR>>Hope this helps.<BR>><BR>>Best,<BR>><BR>>Ruediger<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Afostercarter@aol.com schrieb:<BR>>>Dear colleagues,<BR>>><BR>>>A large question, which has been bugging me for some time:<BR>>>*How unequal is South Korea, really?<BR>>><BR>>>*There is a paradox:<BR>>><BR>>>* In the development literature, South Korea (and Taiwan) are<BR>>>routinely cited as examples of highly egalitarian societies:<BR>>>a fact often linked to their early and thorough land reforms.<BR>>><BR>>>* Yet that is
not at all how most South Koreans themselves see it.<BR>>>In Seoul, inequality and "polarization" are major worries, across<BR>>>the political spectrum. President Roh has made reducing inequality<BR>>>one of the two top goals for the remainder of his presidency<BR>>>(the other being to achieve a free trade agreement with the US).<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>Who is right? Can these views be reconciled? A few thoughts:<BR>>><BR>>>1. There are many kinds of inequality. This debate seems not to be<BR>>>about eg _gender_ inequality, which remains manifest and pervasive.<BR>>><BR>>>2. What about _regional_ inequality? Despite Seoul as vortex and <BR>>>the<BR>>>Honam-Yongnam divide, the alleged rationale for moving the capital<BR>>>seemed quite unconvincing. In this respect, South Korea looks
quite<BR>>>homogeneous when compared to many (most?) other countries.<BR>>><BR>>>3. Similarly, the visible _income_ inequalities of a Brazil, China, <BR>>>India, et al<BR>>>are surely far more extreme and pressing. At least to an outsider, <BR>>>among<BR>>>all the socio-economic challenges which South Korea currently <BR>>>faces,<BR>>>income inequality is hardly the first that would spring to mind.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>Why then do Koreans see it differently? A few hypotheses:<BR>>><BR>>>4. One should distiguish _income_ (flow) from _wealth_ (stock).<BR>>>The latter, as everywhere, is liable to be more unequal.<BR>>><BR>>>5. Income inequality may indeed have _worsened_ since the 1997-98<BR>>>financial crisis, as has job insecurity. Is S. Korea measurably
<BR>>>less<BR>>>equal than it was, or does it just feel that way? And in either <BR>>>case,<BR>>>has it become less equal compared to other countries?<BR>>><BR>>>6. Polemically, my instinct is to file all this as yet another case <BR>>>where<BR>>>current South Korean debates tend to be subjective and <BR>>>inward-looking;<BR>>>with a real risk that pursuing chimeras may produce misguided <BR>>>policies.<BR>>><BR>>>7. However, the clipping below suggests there may be something in<BR>>>these plaints after all - although note SERI's view that, <BR>>>ironically, the Roh<BR>>>administration has made matters worse by (to paraphrase) focusing <BR>>>on how<BR>>>to slice the cake, rather than getting on with baking a bigger and <BR>>>better one.<BR>>><BR>>>8. I bet North
Korea is far more unequal than the South, had we the <BR>>>figures.<BR>>><BR>>>Enlightenment, please!<BR>>><BR>>>best wishes<BR>>>Aidan<BR>>><BR>>>AIDAN FOSTER-CARTER<BR>>>Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea, Leeds <BR>>>University<BR>>>Home address: 17 Birklands Road, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD18 3BY, <BR>>>UK<BR>>>tel: +44(0) 1274 588586 (alt) +44(0) 1264 737634 <BR>>>mobile: +44(0) 7970 741307<BR>>>fax: +44(0) 1274 773663 ISDN: +44(0) 1274 589280<BR>>>Email: afostercarter@aol.com (alt) afostercarter@yahoo.com <BR>>>website: www.aidanfc.net<BR>>>[Please use @aol; but if any problems, please try @yahoo too - and <BR>>>let me know, so I can chide
AOL]<BR>>><BR>>>________________<BR>>><BR>>>http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?term=esteban++&path=hankooki3/times/lpage/200608/kt2006081717480310230.htm&media=kt<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>South Korea's Income Gap Wider Than in Developed Countries<BR>>><BR>>>By Lee Hyo-sik<BR>>>Staff Reporter<BR>>><BR>>>The income gap between the rich and poor in South Korea has <BR>>>deepened over the years, becoming wider than in most developed <BR>>>countries, including the United Kingdom and Japan.<BR>>><BR>>>According to a report by the Samsung Economic Research Institute <BR>>>(SERI) Thursday, the Esteban & Ray (ER) index, which measures <BR>>>income inequality between income brackets, was 0.0665 for Korea in <BR>>>2004, higher than that of most developed nations. The
higher the <BR>>>index becomes, the wider the income gap is between the haves and <BR>>>the have-nots.<BR>>><BR>>>France's ER index came at 0.0434, followed by Germany with 0.0474, <BR>>>Japan with 0.0507 and Britain with 0.0653. The United States was <BR>>>the only developed country with a wider income disparity than South <BR>>>Korea with an ER index was 0.0833, the report said.<BR>>><BR>>>Also, the National Statistical Office (NSO) reported yesterday that <BR>>>the bottom 20 percent in income suffered deficits in the first half <BR>>>of the year as they spent more than they earned to cover rising <BR>>>living costs.<BR>>><BR>>>The monthly income of the bottom 20 percent of households in the <BR>>>country stood at about 800,000 won ($840) during the first six <BR>>>months of the year. But
they spent an average of 1.2 million per <BR>>>month, resulting in a deficit of 400,000 won, up 10 percent from <BR>>>360,000 won recorded in the same period last year.<BR>>><BR>>>However, the top 20 percent in income recorded a surplus of 1.9 <BR>>>million won per month in the first half, up 4.9 percent from 1.8 <BR>>>million won last year.<BR>>><BR>>>The institute attributed Korea's growing income gap between the <BR>>>rich and the poor to low economic growth since the 1997-1998 Asian <BR>>>financial crisis *and the current administration's focus on <BR>>>redistribution of wealth rather than economic expansion. <BR>>>*/[emphasis added]/<BR>>><BR>>>``Even though the country's exports have expanded at a double-digit <BR>>>figure over the past 10 years thanks to rising overseas demand,
<BR>>>such an increase has failed to encourage companies to expand <BR>>>corporate investment and create high-paying jobs,'' it said.<BR>>><BR>>>The institute said that is because Korea's exports have become more <BR>>>centered on capital and technology-intensive industries, such as <BR>>>semiconductors and cellular phones, creating fewer jobs compared to <BR>>>traditional manufacturing businesses.<BR>>><BR>>>``To ease deepening economic polarization, the country should make <BR>>>the utmost effort to enlarge its economic pie and create more jobs, <BR>>>increasing the number of middle-class households, which have lately <BR>>>fallen into the low-income bracket,'' it stressed.<BR>>><BR>>>The institute also said the government should encourage companies <BR>>>to expand facility and research-related
investment and phase out <BR>>>discriminative activities against non-regular workers to produce <BR>>>high-quality jobs and stabilize the livelihoods of low-income <BR>>>households.<BR>>><BR>>>leehs@koreatimes.co.kr 08-17-2006 17:48<BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>