Globalization and Changing Food Politics in South Korea 1
Chul-Kyoo Kim (Korea University)

Globalization and Agriculture
In September 2003, a Korean farmer by the name of Lee Kyung-Hae committed
suicide in Cancun, Mexico to express his opposition against neo-liberal globalizationand World Trade Organization(WTO). The Food First Daily Report observed that

Mr. Lee‟s suicide “gave us the energy to derail the WTO talks in Cancun, and his spiritof struggle will live on in our hearts as we keep fighting for that better world that is
possible.” While foreign observers treated the news seriously, Korean media was notenthusiastic.

Most of Korean media, with the support of the government and businessgroup, maintained that the opening up of agricultural sector is inevitable for the sake ofdevelopment adding that globalization would bring about economic prosperity andmore jobs. Korean farmers were losing the public support for their voice as neo-liberal
ideology and business push for globalization became powerful.

The withdrawal of

public support was climaxed in March, 2005 when Korean national assembly decided
to repeal the bill on rice purchasing program.

It seems evident that a series of Free

Trade Agreement (FTA) with Chile and the US greatly threaten the sustainability of
Korean farmers and rural community.

The far-flung rural crisis is a result of industrial

development of the past and the present. While agriculture apparently is an industry,
it contains much deeper meanings related to food, people, and ecology.

Many

Koreans forget that food comes from the farm. Many people forget that everybody
should be fed in order to survive. And many people forget that FTA‟s impact on foodsystem is a universal one which will affect everyone‟s diet.
Over the past decade or so, globalization has become a key word characterizing
the dynamics of social change.

Unlike what is generally believed, current

globalization involves power dynamics among different actors with unequal resources.
The international organizations such as International Monetary Fund(IMF) and World

1This paper is partially re-written based on previous works including “The Rise and Declineof Statist Agriculture and the Farmers‟ Movement in South Korea” and “Changing Rural
Communities.”64

Bank, big transnational companies, the political leaders of a few powerful nations, andmarket-fundamentalist economists share the common ideology of free market andardently promote globalization.

This particular form of globalization ignores social,

cultural, and ecological aspects.

Current neo-liberal globalization can be termed a

globalization „project‟ in the sense that it is promoted by certain social actors with aparticular interest and that these social actors are trying to make the rules and norms
for a new liberal world.

The globalization project tainted with free market ideology

attempts to incorporate the „social‟ by market system.

Theoretically speaking, thiscolonization of social life by the economic system is at the core of current globalization.
The globalization, hence, eliminates measures installed to protect the rights of people
such as workers and farmers. It also commodifies every element of society including
labor, nature, and food. Or use Karl Polanyi‟s expression, “self-regulating market”
becomes dominant principle of a society.

The advocates of globalization use powerful

ideological rhetoric to persuade people or buy off the public support.

The most

alluring line of argument is liberalization and privatization would bring about economic
growth, which would in turn increase jobs.
In regard to agriculture, it is argued that backward and traditional farms in many
part of the world should be rationalized.

This can be attained by implementing market

norm and completely deregulating global agriculture.

The neo-liberal paradigm does

not see or does not want to see that agriculture is more than an economic sub-sector,
that food is more than just another commodity, and that agriculture is a complex
system consists of human being, living organism, and eco-system.

At the same time,

the advocates of globalization often conceal that profit-seeking business interests arebehind their rhetoric.
This paper attempts to analyze the trajectory of food politics in South Korea by
locating Korean food system in the context of national development.

Analytically, I

focus on the relationships among developmental regime, food system, and food politics.
The food politics involves actors within a particular political opportunity structure.

It isargued that industry based development model of Park Chung-Hee severely repressed
farmers‟ discontents and their collective action.

Thanks to general democratic

movement in the 1980s, farmers began to challenge the government policy and tovoice their demand actively. The democratic movement of 1987 was important for the
farmers‟ movement to become a self-standing movement. The success of democratic
movement resulted in a differentiation of many social movements in Korea and samecan be said to the farmers‟ movement.

65

By late 1980s, Korean economy was transforming into a liberal one clearly
showing weakening of the state dominance in economic sphere.

Ironically, farmers‟

movement demanding „national‟ protection was strengthened during this period.

To

put it roughly, there was a decoupling of economic structure and farmers‟ movement
strategy from late 1980s to until late 1990s. While there was a degree of mismatch
between farmers‟ movement strategy and Korean development regime, farmers‟ voice
was taken relatively seriously because of the support from urban class, who wereenjoying the economic prosperity.

The urban workers, significant portion of whomwere migrants from farm area and whose parents still remained in their hometown,
were supportive of farmers‟ voice.

And they were willing to pay extra for expensive

rice or for rural subsidy as they were thankful, and even felt guilty, that the farmers
were making great sacrifice for national development.
The financial crisis of 1997 changed everything. The economic crisis andrestructuring program imposed by the IMF led to massive layoffs in the urban sector.
The urban middle class collapsed.
financial difficulties.

Many families have broken down because of

Many instances of divorce, separation, suicides (of bothindividuals and families) were reported.

The cold reality of economic crisis in turn led

to a turnaround in the people‟s social psychology.

For the first time in Korean

modernization history since 1960s, Koreans realized that the future could be worse
than the present.

The trauma was deep and socially this brought about a moreindividualist, materialist, and developmentalist culture.

No longer could farmers

expect moral support from the urban class, which meant that farmers‟ movement wasleft in a lonely position fighting against globalization which was concretized in FTA talks
with Chile and the US.

Rural Korea：An Overview
Korea has been able to achieve rapid economic growth over the past forty years.
The modernization meant a transformation from an agrarian society to an industrial
society.

As of 2005, Korean GDP exceeded 800 trillion Korean won and the share of

agriculture was less than 3%.

Yet, in terms of employment, agriculture is still

significant as more than 8% of Koreans rely on agriculture for their living.

This

number is meaningful compared with other OECD countries such as Germany (2.5%),
United Kingdom (1.4%), and the United States (2.5%).

Korean rural community is still

important physical and cultural space where many people live.

66

Current rural population is slightly more than 3.4 million, a drastic change from 14
million in 1960. The number of farm household remains at 1.4 million and 62.6% ofthem are regarded as full-time farmers.

This change is quite significant since thenumber of farm households was more than 2.5 million and the full time farmers
exceeded 90% in 1965.

The average number of family members for each farm has

declined from 6.31 to 2.70 during the past forty years.
<Table 1> provides a summary of what happened during the past several
decades of modernization.

The table delivers several interesting messages to thereaders.

First, the absolute number of farms has decreased to half in 2005 compared

to 1965.

Many farmers have given up farming and even those who remain in the farm

look for other source of income.

Second, farm size in terms of members continued to

decline as some members of a family farm migrated to the cities. It was during theyears between the late 1960s to the 1970s when massive out-migration took place.
The rural migration was two types. The first one was young females, mostly teenagers,
moving to the cities to become workers for light industries such as apparel, textile,
shoes, and electronics.

The second type was young males, often the eldest or

smartest son, moving to the cities for better education or jobs in manufacturing sector.
<Table 1> Key Changes in Korean Family Farms

Year

Changes in farmPer

Per farm income

numberfarm(thousand won)familyTotal% full-Total income% off-farm

number

time

1965

2,507

90.8

6.31

112

20.5

1975

2,285

80.6

5.57

873

18.1

1985

1,926

78.8

4.42

5,736

18.5

1995

1,501

56.6

3.23

21,803

31.8

2005

1,273

62.6

2.70

30,503

32.4

incomeWhile the concentration of workforce to the cities was the engine of economic
growth nationally, it meant the drainage of human capital from the farms, which67exacerbated the social and economic conditions of rural Korea.

Third, Table 1 showsthat the annual income of a farm household was slightly more than 30 million won,which is about 75% of the income of urban household.

The farmers are increasingly

depending on off-farm opportunities for their survival as 32.4% of total income isgenerated from off-farm sources.
Behind the economic success story of Korea lies the shade of rural sacrifice.
Rural Korea has been the victim of industrial development ever since the 1960s. Park
Chung-Hee‟s modernization project was based on export-oriented industrialization
which required cheap labor.
low price was important.
domestic farm sector.

In order to maintain the cheap labor, providing food at aThis was made possible not by producing more food from

Instead, imported food in the form of food aid from the US

played a key role in lowering the food price.

The US food aid since 1950s till early

1970s was important for Korean industrial development; it made the low cost labor
available by feeding urban workers on the one hand and it continued to press the farmhousehold financially so that members of farm family left their hometown to become
potential workers in the cities on the other hand.

The latter formed the so-called„surplus‟ labor, which was essential for industrial competitiveness in the global market
for low ended market.

This system of industrial development resulted in the rural

underdevelopment.
The Korean government carefully controlled the farm sector for many tens ofyears. In addition to well-organized system of government bureaucracy centeredaround the Ministry of Domestic Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture, parastatal National
Agricultural Cooperatives (which was run by the central government) carried out thefunctions of political control, input market, and financial manager.
Since mid-1980s, Korean economy in general has been liberalized even though
Korean farm sector has been protected for political and social concerns.

Yet, theideology of free market began to seriously challenge the support provided to farmers
with the financial crisis of 1997.

Along the line of structural adjustment program

imposed by the IMF, Korean economy underwent a major restructuring.

The financial

crisis was transformed into a social crisis. Millions of layoffs took place and even theones who were working felt serious insecurity. The traditional communal concern atsocietal level rapidly disappeared.

Development Project and Political Economy of Food

68

In the history of 20th century capitalism, the role of US cannot be
overemphasized. The US, with its economic power based on Fordist system, emerged
as a new hegemon replacing the Great Britain. Following the end of World War II, theUSlaunched an ambitious scheme to reorganize world in the name ofdevelopment. So-called “the era of development” began after the Second World War
until the 1970s. The era of development had several characteristics which need to behighlighted, especially if we are to comprehend the globalization from a comparative
perspective.
While development might have taken place in the 19th century Europe andemerged during the colonial period, it became an explicit political project after theWorld War II (McMichael, 2004). In the context of decolonization, development becamea universal goal through out the world. Development was political project since it wasplanned by the US as the new manager of world economy and pursued by the elites ofThird World in the post-colonial context of cold war.
Development became a universal goal in many parts of the world.

The

universalization of development was based on a particular set of institutionalarrangement: the nation-state and national economic growth.

That is, the world was

reorganized into a sum of nation-states with modern bureaucracy of ministries, police,
and military.

The newly formed nation-states attempted to form the national identity

by making national flag, national anthem, and nationalism.

After the state wasestablished, the elites of Third World nations launched a economic development
project defined in quantified GNP based on industrialization. As such, nation-statesystem was solidly established by 1950s. Both the socialist bloc and capitalist bloc
marched for development defined in monetary terms.
In this context, post-war international division of labor distinct from that ofcolonialism evolved. What is most unique about the new division of international labor
was the role played by the US agriculture. The US had become the major producer ofagricultural products based on its industrial farming and huge government subsidy
before the World War II. The US surplus grain played an important role in the making
of industrial workers in other parts of the world. Providing cheap food, most importantly
wheat, to the Third World led to the collapse of local peasant economy and to themaking of industrial proletariat.
The national development, envisioned by the US as a new norm in reconstructing
the post-war world order, had become an obsession by the leaders of Korea and it stillis to some extent. Especially important has been the leadership of Park Chung-Hee
who completely reorganized Korean society for national development. South Korean69

development was possible by a national mobilization of any resource available for thesake of industrialization. It is important to point out here that the national development
pursued by Park Chung-Hee and other leaders also involved the question of politicallegitimacy.

Hence, the material and human resource s from agriculture werereorganized and mobilized for both economic growth and political legitimacy.
South Korean agriculture had been under the strong influence of the state. The
relationship between the Korean state and farmers was close to patron and cliental
relationship.
program.

The state provided subsidies especially in the form of rice purchasing

In addition, the government cancelled the farm debt once in a while forpolitical concerns.

Market was not fully developed for the agricultural inputs; instead

the parastatal National Agricultural Cooperatives carried out the function of market.

In

return for the financial assistance, the farmers had been the main supporters of theregime.

In short, Korean agriculture had become statist, which involved a reciprocal

relationship between the state and farmers by the 19t0s.
The formation of statist agriculture had both internal and external factors, whichwere mutually conditioning.

Externally, the U.S. played a very important role inmaking of Korean agriculture. Among others, two policies worth mentioning: (1) land
reform and (2) food aid. Land reform, which was planned by American agricultural
economists after the World War II, was critical in reorganizing rural society of Japan,
Taiwan, and South Korea in many ways. Firstly, it transformed traditional tenantpeasants into modern farmers, who were dependent on market. Secondly, the newly
formed owner-farmers, even though their average land holding was less a hectare,
were to become conservative constituents for the regimes later on. Thirdly, throughthe land reform, agriculture had become an integral sector of modern Korea both
politically and economically. These changes meant that the Korean government could
implement policies to the national sector of agriculture.
Based on the legal arrangement of Public Law 480, huge amount of food aid wasprovided to Korea. The surplus agricultural products including wheat fed the starving
Koreans after the Korean War. The food aid, though, did much more than filling
Koreans' stomach. It was an important measure to reorganize the Korean society inthe international division of labor forming then. First, many Koreans became serious
consumers of bread and noodle, made of U.S. wheat. Second, the surplus U.S. wheat
lowered the grain price of Korea, which exacerbated the financial status of farmeconomy. This led to the out-migration from the rural society.

In the 1960s and 70s,

large number of young females have moved to a couple of cities such as Seoul.

Theybecame the workers employed in the light industrial sectors of apparel, shoes, wig, and70

electronics. The food aid was transformed to commercial sales in the early 1970s, andthe supply of US cheap food continued to lower the living cost of industrial workers.
At the heart of statist agriculture lies the government rice purchasing
program(秋穀收買制).

The program begun in 1948 but its role changed over time. In

the 1950s, farmers used rice to pay their land tax or to buy fertilizer from thegovernment within the framework of rice purchasing program.

The government used

the rice as rationing for the urban poor or for the employees of public sector.
Park Chung-Hee, after attaining power through the coup, pursued a series ofnational development plans.

In the context of development project orchestrated by

the US, South Korea was able to adopt an export-oriented policy based on cheap labor.
The first Five-Year Economic Development Plan regarded the high price of farm
products as an obstacle for economic development.

The goal of the government

purchasing was to stabilize the grain market and farmers were forced to sell their rice
at lower-than-market price.

This program, along with grain import from the US,

caused the poverty of farm economy, which in turn led to the out-migration of farm
population to become industrial reserve army.
Beginning in 1969, South Korean government began the dual price policy ofgrains(二中穀價制), by which the government purchased grains at high price from thefarm and sold them to the consumers at low price. The financial deficit caused by thisprogram was met by loans from Korea National Bank until the deficit became too muchof a burden.

The goal of the program was to subsidize the family economy of urban

workers and rural farmers at the same time.

This program was not sustainablefinancially, yet it was maintained because of political concerns about the farmers who
were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their economic situation by late 1960s
especially compared with urban residents. The revised government rice purchasing
program was a desperate effort by Park‟s regime to solve the legitimacy crisis.
The rice purchasing program in the 1980s was again playing the role of stabilizing
food price until 1988, when the opposition party became majority. Beginning from1988, rice was purchased from the farmers to subsidize their income and sales price tothe consumers was repressed to control the price index.

The government financial

burden increased again and the political burden grew even more as Uruguay Roundtalks developed in the 1990s.
Government rice purchasing program was an important measure to maintain thepatron-cliental relationship between the state and farmers.

It has been the legacy ofthe statist agriculture which was stabilized under the development project of the 1970s.
It has been maintained, despite its obvious decoupling with the national accumulation71

regime.

This “duration” of statist legacy was possible because of the strong farmers‟

movement and public acceptance of farmers‟ voice as legitimate claim.

The

imbalance in the income and social well-being between urban residents and farmers
was important rationale for the rice purchasing program.
Globalization and Changing Contours of Food Politics
As much as the South Korean statist agriculture was institutionalized in theinternational context of development, the decline of the statist agriculture in Korea has
been conditioned by the globalization as a new international norm.

Globalization,

which became a prevalent social phenomenon in the 1980s, was in it's making whenthe Bretton Woods system collapsed and dollar began to lose its political role in theworld economy in the 1970s. It meant the end of an international arrangement basedon nation-states. It also meant the beginning of a new international arrangement
based on the principle of global market. As McMichael points out, this globalization
process is political project because "markets are no more natural than nations--they
have to be constructed, accepted as real, and reproduced." Hence, globalization is a"political intervention to overcome the limits of the development project" (2004: 154).
The Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF, the World Bank, G-7 nations, and thetransnational corporate elites have taken the role of global manager and they redefined
the development in the new terms of the world market.
Globalization expresses the changing relationship among the state, economy, andsociety.

Most importantly, it exhibits the dominance of transnational capital, and of the

global institutions supporting global business operations over the “state” and “civilsociety.” This general process of globalization acquires additional meanings reflecting
peculiarities of agriculture.
First, globalization of agriculture means the trade liberalization of agriculture andsharp increase in agricultural trading.

This also means the launching of new

institutional arrangement to facilitate “de-sectorization” of agriculture and taking away
the protective measures from poor farmers.

The Uruguay Round of GATT andfollowing talks of WTO have been the international efforts to bring about free tradenorms to agriculture.

Here, the US has been playing the major role, along withCAIRNS countries.

As <Table 2> shows, the US has been the major exporter ofagricultural goods, especially since mid-1970s, which has helped the US cope withchronic problem of trade deficit over the years. For example, the US had more thantwelve billion dollars of trade surplus in farm goods in 2002.

72

Hence, it is no surprisethat US has been the leader in the move for free trade of agricultural goods in the WTO
talks.

<Table 2> Changes in US agricultural Trade (1935-2002)
in Million Dollars

Year

ExportImportTrade Balance

1935

669

934

-265

1940

738

1,239

-501

1945

2,191

1,729

462

1950

2,986

3,177

-191

1955

3,144

3,781

-637

1960

4,519

4,010

509

1965

6,097

3,986

2,111

1970

6,958

5,686

1,272

1975

21,817

9,435

12,382

1980

40,467

17,292

23,176

1985

31,201

19,74011,461

1990

40,34922,706

17,643

1995

54,64429,78824,856

2000

50,74438,857

11,887

2002

53,29440,97912,314

Sources: USDA, Census of Agriculture, various years.
Second, globalization leads to the establishment of transnational agro-foodbusinesses, which increasingly dominates the whole food system today. The agro-foodbusinesses are trying to minimize the uncertainties caused by “nature” by either
appropriating production process by industrial activities or by subcontracting with thefarmers.

In addition, the agro-food businesses are aggressively involved in vertical

integration of production, processing, distribution, and marketing.

The transnational

agro-food giants are strong supporter of free trade ideology and influence national
policies, endangering the very survival of farmers in the world.

73

Third, partially related with what has been discussed above yet worth more indepth discussion, is the expansion of business areas and merger & acquisition among
the food, pharmaceutical, and seed businesses. During the mid-1990s, agro-chemicalbusiness such as Monsanto has acquired seed companies, while pharmaceuticalcompanies have led the merge with bio- & agro-firms (Park, 2001).
The large transnational agro-food companies such Cargill, ConAgra, Monsanto
are actively involved in expanding their business scope, reconstructing food system tofully exploit the world as consumer market and the source of food input in maximizing
the profit.

In response to the globalizing force, individual states are subject to the free

trade regime victimizing the farmers whose subsistence relies heavily on state
protection.

The FTA, while it is made between the states, is strongly affected by thetransnational companies.

The FTA between Chile and South Korea can be said toserve the interest of Delmonte, which is in control of Chilean agriculture, and Samsung,which dominates the national economy of Korea.
Fourth, globalization radically changes the food consumption patterns. More foodimported from other parts of the world are consumed, fast food restaurants became
important part of eating out culture, and homogenization of diet take place.

Thesechanges lead to a process called “distancing,” which means the increase of social andphysical distance from “farm to mouth” (Kneen, 1994). Again, the US is playing therole of breadbasket of the world, including Korea.

Korea ranked 4 th in total import of

US processed food in value terms in 2000 (See <Table 3>).

The food dependency of

Koreans to the global market, especially to the US, can develop into a major problem
when food crisis takes place.
<Table 3> Export of Processed Food by the US (2000)
in Million Dollars, %US Export to
Value

Share

Total

30,044.1

100.0

Japan

6,213.6

20.7

Canada5,746.5

19.1

Mexico3,369.0

11.2

Korea

1,839.6

6.1

Hong Kong

885.3

2.9

Britain

741.3

2.5

74

Taiwan

730.2

2.4

Holland

704.6

2.3

China

661.5

2.2

Germany

497.3

1.7

.
In short, the globalization of agriculture, by spreading the free market principle,
intensifies the agricultural specialization which is not sustainable, integrates farmers
into an agro-food complex organized by transnational food companies, and transforms
farm products to mere input for industrial processed food.
While globalization transformed Korean economy in general, the agriculture
remained rather protected until recently.

Yet, the ideology of free market andrationalization began to seriously question the protective measures traditionallyprovided to Korean farmers.

The IMF financial crisis was a major blow to Korean

farmers and to anything that was “non-market.”

Neo-liberal ideas claimed its

hegemony in Korean society and market rationality was advanced as the sole norm toorganize all social relationships. While international environment has been important
for the dissolution of statist agriculture, the domestic dynamics also was very significant
in the process.
The globalization of Korean economy based on industrial competitiveness andpublic opinion of urban class turning against the protection of agriculture were the final
knell to the statist agriculture.

This toll was loudly heard as the Korean national

assembly decided to repeal the bill on rice purchasing program in March, 2005.

The

last protective measure for the farmers from the global market is finally teared down
and the farmers are exposed to the violence of globalization, which is orchestrated bytransnational business and organizations.

Increasingly, globalization and neo-liberalism seemed to claim legitimacy in Korea. This in fact reflects the changing

75

structure of Korean capitalism and the dominance by the globalized Korean business.
The rosy picture of globalization is spread without critically examining the danger andthe power relationship included in the globalization discourse.
The farmers‟ movement in Korea, especially against the agricultural liberalization,
was more than an effort to maintain their income level by opposing the import of US
farm products. It was an explicit social effort to stop the imposition of a standardized
market rule to historically constructed Korean agriculture.

This was never fully

appreciated by the neo-liberal government or by the business which believed in themarket and instrumental rationality.
It was in the 1980s that farmers began to express their discontents with theagricultural policies and the feeling of deprivation through collective movement. In thehistory of social movement in South Korea, 1987 was an important turning point. In aneffort to end the continuation of military leadership, various social movements fromlabor to farmers to environment collaborated.

Interestingly, there was little

differentiation of social movements until 1987. As <Table 4> shows, the mostimportant issue advanced by farmers' organizations was democracy and demolition of
dictatorship.
Korean farmers‟ movements have a long history which can go back as far as earlyth

20 century during the Japanese colonial period. Modern form of organized collective
action was extremely vital especially after the decolonization in 1945.

During thepolitical dark age of 1960s and 70s under Park Chung-Hee‟s repressive regime,
religion supported organizations such as Korean Catholic Farmers' Organization(KCFO) and Korean Protestant Farmers' Organization (KPFO) played a important rolein raising issues such as farmers‟ poverty, cruel working condition, and health issues
due to farm chemicals.

Yet, it was within the changing political structure after Park

Chung-Hee‟s death and economic liberalization of 1980s that farmers‟ movement
organizations became influential in Korean politics.
movement

of

1987,

National

Farmers

Right after the June social

Committee

forDemocracy(NFCD:

民主爭取國民運動 全國農民委員會) was formed on July 8, 1987, which became active
in fighting against the import liberalization of agricultural goods. The NFCD organized
a number of street demonstrations in 1988 against the liberalization of livestock
market. In March of 1989, the National Federation of Farmers' Movements(NFFM:
全國農民運動聯合) was formed by amalgamation of KCFO and KPFO. The twoorganizations of NFCD and the NFFM have jointly formed National Federation of
Farmers Organizations(NFFO: 全國農民會總聯盟) in 1990 which has represented all
farmers' movements since then.

NFFO has been the most active organization76

challenging the government policy of agricultural trade liberalization, while otherfarmers‟ organizations such as KCFO remain quite strong and involved in concrete
farmers‟ issues in the communities.
In <Table 4>, I have done a discourse analysis of official statements issued by the
NFFO comparing key issues of 1987, 1996, and 2005.

The findings were as follows:(1) Democratization was a key issue in 1987, which meant that farmers‟ movement wasunder the umbrella of a more macro social movement dealing with social structure of
the time.

(2) Rice issue was very important in 1996. The price of rice purchasing

program was the key concern of farmers in 1996.

(3) The issue of democracy, which

was central in 1987, disappeared in later years.

Instead, critique against politicalleaders such as Kim Yong-Sam rose as a major issue in 1996. NFFO and farmers
demanded the resignation of President Kim Yong-Sam, arguing that he had broken thepromise to protect the rice sector.

(4) While the critique against import liberalization

was among the list of key issues in both 1987 and 1996, it has become the mostimportant one in 2005. Government effort to implement globalization became more
visible and public opinion also became less favorable for farmers.

(5) The critiqueagainst politicians for their indifference to agriculture and lack of commitment tofarmers has increased as well in recent years.

The NFFO continues use tactics of so-called „street politics‟ to deal with farm problems.
<Table 4 > Key Issues in Official Statements by Farmers' Organizations

77

1987

1996

Rank

Issues#1

Democracy

18

2

Farm land

15

Critique of politicians

13

3

Import liberalization

8

Health insurance

11

6

Import liberalization

9

Anti-US

6

Direct Payment

9

Farm Land

6

Marketing

6

Farm land

5

Labor

4

4

Democratization of
Cooperatives

5 Price of farm products 5

Issues2005#

Rice Purchasing
Program

15

IssuesImportLiberalization
Critique of
Politicians
Rice Purchasing
Program

Revitalization
ProgramDirect Payment

#
61
48
9

6
5

This table shows that Korean farmers are extremely concerned about the importliberalization.

It also shows that their strategy against globalization is based on“national politics” of protecting rice sector similar to the strategy of 1990s.

The

problem is that the current strategy is less favorably responded by the media and urban
residents. This makes the farmers‟ movement even more difficult.
Recently there have been other organizations which attempt to politicize foodissue, but in a different way than that of NFFO.

For instance, consumer cooperatives

such as Consumer Cooperative of Korea Womenlink (CCKW: 女性民友會生協) has
been actively involved in anti-FTA movement from consumer‟s view based on foodsafety. As <Table 5> shows, CCKW has been widely involved in opposing Korea-US
FTA in 2006 and 2007. While it also participated in street rallies along with NFFO andother farmers‟ organization, it also has developed other tactics to educate andpersuade consumers.

CCKW, as a consumer cooperative with feminist perspective,

has attempted to link urban consumers with rural producers using food as a media tobuild a community.

< Table 5> Major Activities of CCKW in 2006 and 2007

78

2006

March: Street rallies against US beef import
April: National campaign against imported rice
June: Launched consumer action committee against Korea-US FTA
July: Participated in national rally against Korea-US FTA
August: Female producer-consumer workshop; Exchange program withJapanese consumer cooperative
September: Harvest festival of organic rice in Hongsung
October:Festival on Life-Peace-Environmental Farming

Press conference against Mad Disease and US beef
November: Lecture by Jane Goodall on harvest for hope
2007

January: Press conference against Korea-US FTAMarch: National Statement to Stop Korea-US FTA
April: Group Workshop on Korea-US FTA
May: Domestic wheat festival in Soonchon
June: Organic farm produce promotion event
Urban-Rural area mutual prosperity festival in Hongsung
July: Demonstration against E-mart which sold US beef
August: Street campaign against US beef nearby subway stations

In addition to CCKW, there are other organizations of consumers and producers
which emphasize life(生命), ecology(生態), community(共同體), and food(食品). Whilethese organizations may be less aggressive in street politics, they are also very
important actors opposing global food system that attempts to colonize food.

It is thenetworks and ties among these different actors which can stop the brutal force of
globalization and commodification and revive the multi-meaning of food.
Conclusion
To sum up, globalization came from two directions: from outside and inside.
From the outside, the WTO and FTAs have pressed the Korean government toconform to the global rules of free market.

From the inside, the Chaebols, whichbecame transnational companies themselves, have demanded the policies of free
trade to guarantee their access of global market.

In this context, Korean farmers havebeen losing their allies and public support for their voice especially after the financial
crisis of 1997.
discourse.

The neo-liberal ideology has become prevalent in media and public

Under this condition, farmers‟ movement was regarded as an expression79

of particularized interest. Farmers‟ movement has taken the strategy of organizing
street rallies and demanding governmental protection based on nationalism.

Theymight need a new strategy considering the changes in international and national
political environment.

Instead of relying too much on statist politics, the new farmers‟

movement needs to make more extensive ties with the urban consumers.

Extremecommodification of food led to a very real and concrete danger in what we, i.e.,everyone eat. Public concern with food safety and health are high and this should befully capitalized for a new food movement.

Instead of playing along the rule of global

market, the new rule of game based on food as symbolizing life, body, and social
meaning should be aggressively adopted.

The new politics of food, which would

overcome the separation between the urban and the rural, is needed.

The current

crisis of statist agriculture can serve as an opportunity for the new food politics
integrating urban consumers and rural producers, which together can resist thecommodity fetishism of globalization.

80

REFERENCES
Kneee, Brewster. 1994. From Land to Mouth. Toronto: NC Press.
Kim, Chul-Kyoo. 1997. “The development and changing discourse of Korean farmers‟
movement”, Economy and Society. Vol. 34.(in Korean)Kim, Chul-Kyoo. 2006. “The Rise and Decline of Statist Agriculture and the Farmers‟
Movement in South Korea” Korea Observer. Vol. 37, No.1.
McMichael, Philip. 2004. Development and Social Change. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Park, Minsun. 2001. “Corporate domination through bio-technology”, Rural Sociology.
Vol.11, No.2.
Polanyi, Karl. 1944/1957. The Great Transformation. Boston: Bacon Press.
Yoon, Byung-Sun. 2004. “An analysis of agricultural dominance by transnational agrofood complex”, Rural Sociology. Vol. 14, No.1.

81