For my blog post this week, I am going to focus
on employment relations in Japan and Korea, specifically their similarities and
differences, and also the effect that the Asian Economic Crisis in the 1990s
had on Japan, in particular. Japan and Korea are said to have some key
similarities and differences in their approaches to employment relations (ER).
As outlined by EeHwan Jung (2010) in the article, 'Employment relations in Japan and Korea', similarities include enterprise unionism, paternalistic management, seniority wages, merit-based pay, internal labour markets and the segmentation of labour markets into core and periphery.
However, there are some key differences, such as that Japan is typically cooperative in nature as outlined by Jung (2010), compared with Korea, which due to the ‘them versus us’ mentality between management and unions. This confrontational attitude is highlighted in the number of working days which are lost due to strike action with Korea counting 114 per 1000 employees in 2000 compared to Japan with 0.7 lost workdays. Unlike Japan, Korea does not follow the practice of lifetime employment, and Korean employers are more authoritarian and market-driven. Thus, Jung puts forth the conclusion that Korea is not a variant of the Japanese ER model, but a mixture between the US model and the Japanese model.
With reference to the impact that the Asian
Economic Crisis has had on the two economies, I have found an interesting
article by Stanley Fischer (1998), which described the impact on Korea and
Japan. Korea was influenced by deep currency depreciation, loss of market
confidence and weak financial systems as a result of the crisis, whilst Japan
also suffered as a result of its weak financial system and the resultant high
unemployment rates and Fischer proposed the need for substantial fiscal
expansion for the Japanese economy.
As discussed by Bamber, Lansbury and Wailes
(2011) in their article ‘International and comparative employment relations:
globalization and change’, in recent years there has been a growth in atypical employment such
as part-time, fixed-term and temporary workers, which raises issues such as job
security and the leap from atypical to regular employment. There has also been
issues arising due to Japan’s aging population and the diminishing of
employment opportunities, which is contrasted with the overworking of younger
employees due to cuts to recruitment.
It is clear the Asian Economic Crisis has had
an influence on employment relations in Japan. However, although some aspects
of the traditional model have changed slightly in terms of atypical employment,
it has not deviated away completely from the traditional model.
To read more of Stanley
Fischer’s article, see here: https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/1998/040898.htm
Hey Hayley, great post!
ReplyDeleteI found an article that compared 4 Asian countries – including Korea and Japan in several aspects of employment relations (Suzuki, 2004). I found the role of unions and collective bargaining in both nations quite interesting. Like you said when you were explaining the differences between Japan and Korea – the Koreans have a very ‘us versus them’ mentality between management and unions. This mentality is also reflected in the limited role of collective bargaining in Korea. Korea moved towards a system of free collective bargaining after the democratization of 1987 but Korean labour unions are divided and weak when it comes to facing management (Suzuki, 2004). Japan also struggle with collective bargaining. Roughly 20% of employed people belong to a labour union in Japan. This has caused collective bargaining to have a very limited role in wage determination as well as other conditions of work (Suzuki, 2004).
Like you stated - atypical employment is on the rise and I think this has had an impact on the role of collective bargaining in both nations – but more so Japan. People who work part-time, casually or temporarily are not covered by collective bargaining, so a) they are easier to dismiss and b) unions are then restricted to organising only full time employees and are helpless against the enlargement and growth of atypical forms of employment (Suzuki, 2004). I know the population increase in Japan played a big role in the growth of atypical employment and i guess it’s better to have atypical employment than be unemployed.
Here is the link for the article I found:
https://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/33699/1/WasedaBusiness%26EconomicStudies_40_Suzuki.pdf