hankyoreh

(from the New York Times)

By Seo Won-hee, doctor of public administration

In a column entitled “Is South Korea disappearing?” published in the New York Times late last year, Ross Douthat warned that a country that sustained a birth rate at South Korea’s level of 0.72 as of 2023 would have “a depopulation exceeding what the Black Death delivered to Europe in the 14th century.”

As the nuance of the title suggested, the column compared the reality faced by South Korea to the bubonic plague, which caused a larger impact in terms of population decline for Europe than the two World Wars did in the 20th century.

At first glance, the columnist seemed to have a point with his analysis of the causes behind South Korea’s population decline — college entrance competition, antagonism between the sexes, and a chronically online younger population — and his call to learn valuable lessons from it.

But questions remain as to whether a population decline necessarily dictates a pessimistic future for a country.

Alan Malach, the author of the book “Smaller Cities in a Shrinking World,” predicts that the world is currently poised to transition from an era of growth to one of shrinking. In his view, the new current in history is one of smaller populations, smaller economies, and a smaller world.

To be sure, population is a key indicator of a country’s future competitiveness. But the historical context of population decline is different.

Malach stresses that the important question is how a smaller population might survive while responding to the future’s various threats and opportunities, including those associated with climate change and technological innovation.

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, the authors of “Why Nations Fail,” stress that the sharp population decline caused by the bubonic place was a “vivid example of a critical juncture, a major event or confluence of factors disrupting the existing economic or political balance in [European] society.”

They also argue that a steep population decline can be a turning point in terms of future economic growth and the advancement of democracy.

During the 14th century, England’s population was halved by the plague. The serfs, a dominated working class, became scarcer, which led to the establishment of new institutions to bolster their rights.

The serfs’ economic status improved as they gained economic freedoms and the freedom to move. They became a social base that would lead politically to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and economically to the Industrial Revolution, which started in 1780. As a result, England was set on the path to becoming the world’s dominant power.

But not every European country that suffered a steep population drop due to the Black Death would make the leap forward. In Eastern Europe, feudal lords sought to make up for the decline in the serfs’ workforce through more intensive systems of exploitation. This put these regions on a different path from the prosperity that Western Europe came to enjoy.

So what was the foundation that allowed England to ultimately profit from the plague’s population decline and achieve political and economic progress? According to Acemoglu and Robinson, the answer lay in the power of inclusive institutions.

In the wake of the population crash, Western European countries like England, France, and Spain made the transition from societies where opportunities were granted only to a minority privileged class to ones that offered motivation and incentives for anyone to demonstrate their talents.

Meanwhile, Eastern Europe, with its adherence to institutions where an established privileged class exploited the majority, ended up marginalized. In other words, it was the institutional transition toward political and economic fairness and equality that created the historical currents leading England and other Western European countries to eventual prosperity.

The situation of institutional turning points being crucial factors determining a country’s fate has also been seen in East Asia.

Japan, China and Korea were all absolute monarchies during the 19th century. When Japan made its leap forward in the early 20th century, this was the result of the Meiji Restoration of 1868, which saw it rapidly joining the global trend of industrialization.

Japan abolished its feudal institutions and reformed its political and economic ones as it fostered its military industry. In contrast, Korea’s modernization ended up delayed by its closed-door policies, while China lost much of the momentum for independent modernization in the wake of the first Opium War, which ended in 1842.

How, then, are advanced economies in Europe and Japan preparing for the trend toward population fall-off today? 

In 2005, Germany enacted its Immigration Law and opened the door for immigration regardless of occupation. Japan enacted its Hate Speech Elimination Act in 2016 to regulate discriminatory speech directed at foreign nationals. In doing so, it laid the foundation for political, economic and social institutions that are free of xenophobia. 

Korea, too, has been making steady strides on laying the institutional framework for a more inclusive society by passing legislation like the Framework Act on the Treatment of Foreigners Residing in Korea in 2007 and the Multicultural Families Support Act in 2008. 

But even post-adoption of these institutions, there are still some who question whether foreigners should be treated as equal to Korean citizens. 

Whether a proposed amendment to the Government Organization Act that would create a dedicated immigration agency in Korea will become a decisive turning point in progressing toward inclusive institutions will be key. Korea finds itself staring down the barrel of a rapid population crash. But the question shouldn’t be whether Korea is “disappearing,” but rather whether it is “evolving.” In this era of cutting down and cutting back, a rapidly shrinking population could well serve as a turning point for evolution and development. 

The key question is how to overcome economic polarization, accept multiculturalism, and go from populism coupled with polarized political conflicts to inclusive institutions. 

Just as history isn’t inescapable, Korea’s post-population-decline future isn’t preordained. 

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]