Its efforts have contributed to a modest increase in births but this has not compensated for the long decline since the 1970s.
South Korean women have postponed marriage and childbearing. The mean marrying age for women increased from 25 in the 1990s to 30 in 2015, and most South Korean mothers don’t have their first child until well into their 30s. Measures such as generous childcare payments have contributed to a modest recovery in the birth rate, from 1.08 in 2003 to 1.29 in 2015. Even more encouraging is that more girls are being born. In 1990 there were 117 boys born for every 100 girls. This fell to 106 boys for every 100 girls by 2012, which is comparable with Western societies.
But three decades of declining birth rates and the cumulative shortage of girls has reduced the pool of future parents. South Korea cannot rely on births alone to sustain its population. It will need to turn to immigration or risk seeing its population shrink. But a rigorous movement advocating for immigration seems unlikely to flourish in the near future.
Most South Koreans say that they favour more immigration. The young and well educated are comfortable with living around foreigners and accept that non-ethnic South Koreans can qualify for citizenship. South Korea’s foreign-born population is far below that of Australia, Canada, the United States and Israel, but an older and less-well educated minority are uncomfortable with the changes that immigration necessitates. Opponents claim that migrants can never become ‘real’ South Koreans. They also believe that the government is spending too much on language and cultural programs for new arrivals.
A second line of argument is that attempts to facilitate higher levels of immigration have either failed or been abused. The Overseas Koreans Act (OKA) was introduced in 1999 to entice wealthy South Koreans living abroad to return home through the offer of dual citizenship.
Dual citizens cannot vote, run for public office or seek employment in the public service, but neither are they obligated to perform military service. Some dual citizens have abused this provision to keep their sons out of the military. The OKA has a limited capacity to increase immigration. At best, it simply dissuades even more South Korean citizens from emigrating in the first place.
Even progressives may be reluctant to advocate for more immigration ahead of December’s presidential election. The decade-long dominance of South Korea’s conservatives appears to be ending. The ruling party lost the legislative elections in 2016, and the progressive opposition and civil society are fresh from their successes in forcing Park Geun-hye to step down — at least temporarily — from presidency. In the West, populists such as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Pauline Hanson and Nigel Farage have harnessed fears about immigration. South Korea’s progressives would be reluctant to offer their opponents a similar cudgel.
There are at least three arguments that progressives can make to justify an increase in South Korea’s migrant intake. First, it’s the right thing to do. Some 65 million people worldwide are currently forcibly displaced from their homes, which is the highest in history. South Korea plays a part in accepting refugees from North Korea but the problem is global in scale. National borders are not as impregnable or fixed as they were once thought to be. South Koreans may be convinced that they need to do more to be part of the solution.
Second, South Korea’s dual-citizenship provisions could be strengthened to prevent the rich from avoiding military service. These provisions could also be expanded so that it is easier for suitably qualified non-ethnic South Koreans to become citizens. With many talented US citizens currently disaffected with the new Trump administration, and immigrants to the United States feeling less welcome, South Korea and other societies have an opportunity to lure skilled workers to their shores through the offer of dual citizenship.
Third, immigration has positive economic effects if it is handled well. Societies that have more citizens born overseas tend to have comparatively better economic performance. For instance, more than one in four Australian residents were born overseas and Australia has recorded 25 years of continuous economic growth. Australia’s population growth would be flat or stagnant in the absence of immigration, which underlines the potential for migrants to contribute positively to new societies.
Immigration is a sensitive issue for all societies but it is one that South Koreans should give serious thought to this election year. The stakes are high.
David Hundt is a senior lecturer at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University.
Thanks for an informative analysis. I did not realize that the ROK’s birth rate is even lower than that of Japan’s (1.4). I have read elsewhere that the number of foreign born residents has been growing in recent years. But it would require a substantial increase in immigration over a steady period of years for it to make a dent in the demographic challenges the country is facing. While the younger generation may be more open to foreign born residents, isn’t it the older, more conservative generation who are the policy makers in the country? Are they likely to adopt what to them would seem like a radical departure from the status quo? For massive and ongoing immigration to be successful it requires a large investment in social resources aimed at helping newcomers learn the language, get jobs, obtain housing, etc. Can the ROM, like Israel for example, make those kinds of commitments?
Hi Richard,
Many thanks for your comments — a lot to think about here! I think that there are some policymakers who see the problem and would like to fix things, but as often is the case political will is lacking.
What is the point of immigrating to South Korea if there are no good paying, full-time, permanent jobs waiting for you? On Al Jazeera, East 101, there was a film about South Koreans are leaving the country because of the lack of job opportunities. You need to blame the corporate malfeasance in the 1990s and 2008 for causing the lack of job opportunities for causing people to put off marriage and having more kids. In addition, the South Korean companies are sending the jobs overseas and/or the jobs in Korea will now be temporary, part-time jobs with no benefits and no chance of becoming permanent.
Hi Gunther,
Many thanks for your comments, and I completely agree with you that South Korea has a shortage of good jobs at present. The OECD report that I provided a link to at the top of the story spells out the social malaise Korea now faces. As you say, a problem for Korea is the number of Koreans who are leaving the country, and life is extremely tough for those who stay.
Gunther’s point sounds similar to what has been happening in Japan: the growth of so called part time, temporary employment in Japan has offered young people, particularly women, little hope for long term economic success, let alone security. Unlike Korea they don’t leave the country. Instead, young Japanese people put off marriage and then have fewer, if any, children if/when they do marry.
Abe’s so called ‘solutions’ to these underlying social and economic dynamics fueling the demographic crisis, which he calls Abenomics and Womenomics, have so far failed because they have not really addressed these underlying causes in corporate Japan. He is far too much a part of the conservative establishment to take on these powerful forces in the country. Instead, he has relied on the BOJ with its low interest rate policies, etc to stimulate the economy. While it is clear that these policies have passed the point where they are sufficient, Abe has yet to take substantial and concerted action.
The shortage of young people, skilled workers , and lack of full-time, permanent, good paying jobs is happening in a lot of countries plus you have corporations that are looking at automating a lot of jobs as well not only to make up for the lack of people but also don’t want people to have a decent wage. For example in the USA, CEOs of fast food companies have threatened to automate their fast food places if they are forced to pay their workers $15 dollars an hour minimum wage. Of course, you can tell them that fast food workers in Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand make that kind of money plus benefits; however, those facts fall on deaf ears of these CEOs.
I can only assume that the author favours an unimpeded open society approach where all cultures are mixed, a recipe for actually wiping out cultures.
In my view the best solution for South Korea would be what Germany did in 1989/1990: re-unite with the North Koreans, same ethnicity just separated by ideology.
It would require sacrifices by the South Koreans as it did require sacrifices by the West Germans, but it would be worth every unit of money spent in the long run.
Dear Margit,
I don’t favour an ‘unimpeded’ open society, but an open one nonetheless. I would agree with your solution, but unification doesn’t seem likely any time soon. The long run may be very long indeed.
Dear Ms. Alm:
You look at Europe, there have been many cultures that have come and go on that continent such as the Roman culture, the various Greek cultures (Sparta, Athens), the Gaul culture, Viking culture, various Germanic cultures, the various cultures in England like the Norman, Jutes, Saxons, etc. We have no idea what the European various cultures or other cultures will be like in the next 100 years.
South Korea has gained an enormous economic boost by slowing its population growth rate, the result of a really world-leading voluntary family planning program in the 1960s and 70s. It has absolutely everything to gain by allowing its population to shrink. As other commenters have pointed out, there is no shortage of job-seekers. As the economy needs fewer workers to do the same work, ageing will be a bonus as it keeps the youth unemployment at bay. The words “stagnant” and “social decline” are used without any evidence of negative impact, and no consideration of the advantages. Nor could South Korea improve the lot of refugees globally with a higher intake – instead, their pursuit of population growth would further dissuade other countries from funding the family planning needed to get their own populations in check. Since population pressure is behind all the current mass displacements of people, they would be exacerbating, rather than helping, the refugee crisis.
“Nor could South Korea improve the lot of refugees globally with a higher intake – instead, their pursuit of population growth would further dissuade other countries from funding the family planning needed to get their own populations in check.”
I have to agree with Jane’s statement. In addition, all this immigration would encourage other countries not to solve their own political, economic, and social problems. For example, the top business and politicians of Mexico has use immigration to the USA as a pressure valve in not solving its economic problems with its own people due to NAFTA; however, since 9/11 and the crackdown on legal and illegal immigrants at the American federal and state levels in the past several years, immigration from Mexico has dry up and now the Mexican government now has to face reality.
Dear Jane,
Many thanks for your thoughts. I agree that Korea’s family planning program delivered a significant payoff in the 1970s and 1980s. However, it’s possible for population growth to slow too far as well. The task — difficult though it is — for policymakers is to find the optimal growth rate for particular points in time. In my view, there are in fact indicators of social decline in Korea. My article was brief and did not allow space to elaborate on my reasoning for making this claim. If you’d like to know more, I would recommend you to read the OECD report through the first link in my article above. If you’re able to read Korean, you might also be interested in the article in Hankyoreh Sinmun from early February, which also picked up on the declining social indicators in Korea.
Best wishes,
David
When will these ecologically ignorant social engineering meddlers understand that the Earth has limits, as do countries?
High population is one of the main reasons life is so hard in Korea, with a dog-eat-dog work culture and its young people leaving in droves.
Korea is also heavily reliant on food (over 90per cent is imported!) and energy imports – its is completely unsustainable!
E.g:
http://www.asiasentinel.com/econ-business/south-koreas-food-security-alarm/
It needs to halve its population, like Japan and China, and avoid further problems for their future generations. Korea would then stabilise with a replacement fertility, which would naturally occur as quality of life improved.
The lesson is to not get grossly overpopulated in the first place – it helps to avoid, war, famine and disease.
In short, this is a facile article driven by ideological dogma rather than based on evidence and science.
Dear William,
Many thanks for your thoughts. I agree that evidence is the basis of good debate, and so I would recommend the OECD’s report to you. Quality of life, broadly defined, is what I think all societies should aim for, and there is evidence to suggest that something is going wrong in Korea. The fact that young people are leaving, and finding it difficult to find jobs, supports this line of thinking.
I am curious about your stance on ‘social meddling’. Should we abandon social policy altogether? Advocating for *lower* population growth is equally an attempt to deliver certain social outcomes. Would it be better to ‘leave things to the market’ as it were, and allow individuals to make their own choices? If so, then Korea’s rate of population growth would have been a lot higher from the 1970s onwards.
Best wishes,
David