My favorite Korean contributor to the New York Times, Choe Sang-Hun, has penned another article on LMB’s canal mania. It is sad to read such unrealistic comments like:
The canal will bring prosperity back to our town, It will put our town on the map. People will start moving in. They’ll no longer put us down as yokels.
or this one:
. . . If you oppose the canal, you are not one of us,” reads a banner in Yoju, a town south of Seoul. A sign posted by a real estate broker advertises a plot “only five minutes from the canal.”
but it gets crazier still:
. . . To the south lies Mungyong, a mountain-locked town festooned with signs welcoming the canal. Above the streets where farmers hawk apples and dried herbs, banners show views of a future Mungyong as a thriving inland harbor with high-rise buildings and a waterfront amusement park.
Geez, that is really desperate mania when the real estate brokers start trying to cash-in. Choe has done a good job summarizing the issues, problems and the hype surrounding it, so do read it.
Sphere: Related Content
29 Comments
Yes, Elgin, very sad and very disturbing. One really telling quote from the article you left out is this:
“Our town suffered many restrictions on land development because the central government wanted to protect the water quality of the Han River,” said Chung Jong-sop, 54, a Yoju farmer. “If the canal comes, it will put an end to those restrictions and bring development to our town.”
Ah yes, save us from the evils of having to protect water quality!
“Mr. Lee has estimated the cost at $16 billion. He said that 60 percent to 70 percent of it would be recovered by selling sand and gravel scraped from the riverbeds, and that the rest would come from private investment. His aides said that the waterway’s dams would control flooding, and that dredging the riverbeds would actually leave the water cleaner.”
Dredging the riverbeds will leave the water cleaner? In what time frame? And for how long? I realize that in the context of a NY Times article, or a presidential press coference, no one can or wants to go into hydrological details, but anyone with experience looking at big multi-purpose dam projects or cross-basin water transfers knows it’s far more complicated than these people are letting on… far more complicated than I suspect they even dream… I haven’t seen the gory details yet, (and I doubt anyone has), but I can tell you from long experience looking at similar projects that: 1. It will cost three times whatever they say it will now, and I am willing to confidently bet it never pays for itself; 2. This idea comes from developers and engineers, not hydrologists or limnologists or fluvial geomorphologists, and the latter three will be ordered to ‘make it work’ or keep their mouths shut; 3. Multi-purpose dams sound great in principle: ‘We can have canal transport, flood control,and clean water all from the same project!’ But it never works out that way in practice because the different goals, and political pressures, force conflicting management regimes on the system; 4. Fifty years from now, when even Korea will have come to its environmental senses and be forced to tailor development and landscape modification to its own physical and economic limitations, people will be asking in horror and chagrin, “What were they thinking?”
Monorail!
It’s interesting to read and hear the “smart” and certainly cynical criticism of the Grand Korean Waterway canal project. It seems all to be coming from Seoulites and foreigners. In at least one sense, this may be reflecting Korea’s city mouse vs. country mouse dichotomy on steroids. And that, of course, is a major part of the ongoing problem of too much of the wealth and power being centered in Seoul.
The fact is everyone recognizes this over-concentration of people, money, and opportunity being anchored in Seoul, but few are attempting to do anything about. At best, whenever anyone has the audacity to attempt anything, one can be certain the Seoulites will be quick to discount the scheme that comes with the smugness of being a Seoulite that the notion is “crazy,” “unrealistic,” “unsound,” and/or, the best one of all: “naive.” After all, who knows better than someone living in Seoul, right?
But ask someone is has been effectively forced to immigrate from one of the thousands of small cities and towns in Korea to Seoul in order to have a decent prospect of making it in life. Ask such people to compare what is happening to their hometowns to what is happening to the Seoul metro area. And ask these bumpkins who make up the vast majority of the Korean population if they are willing to do anything to spread modern Korean prosperity a bit more equally over the entire nation. You may be surprised how articulate their responses may be when they explain why they are willing to take a chance on a “crazy,” “unrealistic,” “unsound,” and/or “naive” scheme.
…and digging a ditch across the entire nation will do that how?
I say do it. Then we can all sit back and have a good laugh…for a few years!
Tom C:
Yes, I understand, believe me, the problem, and I agree it is an enormous one, of spreading the wealth out to the rural areas and coming up with development plans that bring backwater areas into the national economy so people can stay where they are and have a decent life and some hope for their kids. I am all for spending the money outside of Seoul, and for ideas that will provide jobs in regionally balanced ways. My criticism of the canal project per se comes from my deep background in river management and water-related environmental and conservation issues in Japan and North America, and I have seen all too many cases where national governments have foisted such projects on rural areas with glowing promises and they turned into both economic boondoggles and environmental disasters. Maybe this one will be different… But my skepticism is not based on Seoul-centered elitism. I want to see the Korean countryside prosper, but I have grave doubts that this is the best way to do that. However, I will wait until I see the plans in more detail before spouting off more. One thing is sure, this debate will not end for a very long time!
And enjoy your Green Beer Weekend!
Tom makes a very good point. One important distinction that is not being made is the countryside is just that — the countryside. As the old saying goes “you can not make a silk purse out of a cow’s ear”. Attempting to artificially “develop” these areas, using the same 60’s idea of development will yield the same destructive pattern that has been repeated over and over again. One needs only to look to China to see what this will lead to (read the NY Times series of articles on China “Choking on Growth” for a more detailed example. If one wanted to bring financial assets to these areas, why not attempt something that makes sense for that area, even if it takes longer to accomplish and is not as “grand” as a canal? Such would take political continuity at the local level as well, continuity that would survive through change and that is possible at the local level since the local people would care about their community and would be committed to preserving it (unless you have a developer in charge).
Even if a canal could hypothetically be built, “a future Mungyong as a thriving inland harbor with high-rise buildings and a waterfront amusement park”-syndrome would most certainly cause peripheral damage, destroying far more, ruining whatever ecosystem exists there already, create housing problems as housing prices go up, perversely introducing these “country” folk to the realities of living in Seoul.
Choe’s article nicely reminds one that the same gold-rush fever that drove people from the countryside to Seoul (60’s), so they could realize a personal dream of striking it rich, often involves destructive change. Looking back, the government has not done a good job managing this change in regards to the environmental cost and are not going to change by having people managing such that do not understand the long-term consequences of their actions. Now, this canal project is seemingly creating another gold rush back to the countryside.
Considering this “rush”, a good and classical analogy could be made between this canal project and what Nolbu did in the old folktale of the two brothers. Nolbu quickly copied his good brother but Nolbu’s methods and reasoning was completely wrong: he broke the swallow’s leg and *then* mended it. Yes, he achieved the same results as Hunbu but at what cost? I seem to remember Nolbu was beaten, had everything he owned taken by tax collectors and finally lost the rest of his possessions in a natural disaster (a flood of yellow mud).
A mindless rush to riches — as this canal idea promotes — is what is more perilous because it is breaking the swallow’s leg once again.
There was a time when all I heard from my Korean counterparts was how it was their “dream” to have North and South reunited. While that “dream” still lingers, it seems the newest “dream” is this canal. I was talking to one of our staff members from our Korea office while he was here in the U.S. for a conference. And sure enough, he began to tell me how it was his “dream” to have this canal built. I really didn’t know what to say to that but it seems innocent enough, I suppose.
These rural places already are served by highways of various sizes and many have railroad stations, yet they remain a good many sparks short of sparkling.
President Lee wants to reanimate the Can-Do Korea of his bulldozing youth.
Or perhaps he thinks adding dramatically to the national stock of waterfront property will undo RMH’s damage to the real estate market — and reward a lot of supporters.
I’ve seen some of the commercials for the canal, and I totally understand the inspiring spirit of development and a brighter future that they are trying to convey. I want all the small towns of Korea to be sparkling like they were in the commercial too. But canals don’t really have that effect. How about we try airports first?
How about we try more KTX lines, including KTX freight lines, powered by green nuke-plants, even before airports? Prepare that network for the coming days when it can be connected to Tokyo, Singapore and London… And how about some long-distance bicycle / trekiing trails even before that?
There is much actually-useful actually-workable infrastructure development that could be done here — raising rural prosperity a notch, providing jobs, etc.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I want to be a “fluvial geomorphologist” when I grow up. Thanks for the term, Bad Monkey!
South Korea is surrounded by water and, well, not exactly one of the largest countries in the world. It’s not as if the proposed canal is as needed as the St-Lawrence waterway. Debt and pollution…that’s what this canal will bring to the provinces.
Let me just say, as a former proud resident of the City of Mungyeong (and it is, technically, a city — the second smallest in Korea, in fact, behind Taebaek), that the passage above is just surreal.
I’d like some feedback on this: I recently shocked my girlfriend by calling LMB the “George W. Bush” of Korea. My connection was this: Bush came from an oil industry background, and as President did outrageous and harmful things for his country that benefited the oil industry. Now, read that sentence again and replace “Bush” with “LMB” and “oil” with “construction.”
I know there are some informed people on this blog. Is my connection obvious, or misguided, or somewhere in between?
Granfalloon, you’re going to have to illustrate your point with some visual aids before people will get it. Fire up Photoshop and paste LMB’s face onto a monkey’s head, then post it. THEN people will understand.
#15 - Well… LMB’s reign is still a bit too new to start making Bush comparisons (Bush never built any canals, far as I know). Let’s see if he gets Korea into any interminable wars first.
The whole idea about creating prosperity/propping up economies through massive civil engineering projects does seem eerily reminiscent of a certain ruling family up north, though. Ryugyong Hotel, anyone?
I, too, am having a hard time picturing Mungyong as a thriving inland harbor.
I don’t think anyone is realistically thinking that the canal will actually make Mungyeong an inland harbor — not even most of the citizens of that small city. But I do think something like a canal can offer entrepreneurial opportunities beyond simple logistics such as tourism and local recreation — and probably some other ideas not yet dreamed.
To consider developing the countryside as being a waste of resources, or to take at face value exaggerated dreams of a few or this is a simple “ditch digger” activity, does a disservice to a large number of rural Koreans — and quite possibly that kind of attitude, intended or not, suggests some disrespect to the majority of Koreans who happen to live someplace other than in major urban centers.
Land speculation along the suggested canal path is unavoidable. I remember when as Peace Corps Volunteer Park Chung-Hee suggested moving capital to somewhere in Chungchung Bukdo. Naturally, folks went nuts. But while there are always slickies everywhere, their actions do not necessarily reflect on the actual intentions of planners.
Anyway, I’m just getting weary of all this know-it-all criticism of an idea without any intelligent alternatives being offered. The fact that a group of people with proven credentials are trying something — even something as audacious as grand canal — deserve a fairer hearing than the knee-jerk reactions I have heard to date.
This canal scheme could actually be a bad idea after all. But does anyone seriously have a better plan for distributing the nation’s wealth and resources over the long run? Let’s hear it — and I hope those proposing something else know as much about what they are talking as the backers of the current canal scheme.
I should have checked my email inbox before posting the above. I found the below note from a good friend of mine, who is a well respected Irish diplomat:
Tom – someone should encourage the former Grand Marshal of Seoul’s St Patrick’s Day Parade [sic: 2MB] to send some of his officials to visit the Shannon-Erne Waterway – I had the pleasure of being involved with some community development projects associated with this real success story – the projects, such as the building & managing of berths for riverboat cruisers/boat hire companies/visitor centres, etc. all had to be owned by the local community, have a cross-community dimension, a cross-border dimension if possible as well as long-term economic viability.
If these conditions were met believed to be in place, the IFI put its money (mostly US funds to begin with) on the table first, & sent in experts to work with the local community – in some cases over a number of years - to bring disparate groups together. In some cases this was as basic as facilitating dialogue between those most politically divided such as ex-prisoners, etc.
Of course one effect of the refurbishment of the canal was that private sector money followed very quickly. If a project like the S-E Waterway can help bring people who have been in political & agrarian disputes for hundreds of years, maybe something similar might be possible in Korea – I have always thought of this as a possible model for North-South co-operation in Korea but the same might apply for inter-provincial collaboration!
I always thought one of the best ways for Korea to spread its growth into the country was to get rid of all the restrictive agricultural regulations about land use.
However even with that done, I think we need a dose or reality. So what if the agricultural regions die? It’s really the progression of economic development at this stage. I find nobody crying about the slow death in rural North Dakota, let alone the need to build a Missouri-Lake Superior canal.
Korea is going to have to face it sooner or later, they are no longer a nation of pastoral farmers. Farming here, or at least how it done under current regulations, is inefficient and those resources (including the human resources) can be better allocated by the economy.
Tom: Is the government truly responsible for the welfare of the people in the rural regions? I’m with Dram Man on this: the government is the problem, not the solution. Deregulate land use and the free market will sort these people.
That said, I’ve said from the beginning that if this proceeds, it’ll be the world’s most expensive Disney ride, and your bit on the Irish canal backs that up. It’ll be used for tourism, as it won’t be practical for transporting much in the way of goods. However, I’d rather not see my tax won put to this use for tourism.
Tom, who says the “backers of the current canal scheme” know so much either? Building such a canal would require the planning and effort of several different disciplines and not just one president or body of lawmakers to vote for such to happen, though that might happen anyway. To offer you an alternative plan would take more in-depth research and planning than has occurred so far, regarding the building of a grand canal, so do not hold your breath when asking for such.
No one has said that “developing the countryside” is a “waste of resources”, as you put it, rather, there appears to be a rush for riches going on without the benefit of enough serious research and planning having been done. It is not arrogant for people who have seen and experience long-term government-sponsored waste and misdirection (saemangeum project) to be more than a little bit cynical and to ask questions.
Currently, to make a short list for demonstration purposes only, some of the most obvious and pressing issues facing Korea are to be energy development, the rising cost and shortage of grains such as soybean and rice. One could start by considering parts of the country that might used to address these concerns (this is already being done, even as I write). Already out-lying parts of Korea are home to research in alternative forms of energy and more places that are compatible to such uses can be utilized. Even in places like Texas there is a new push towards wind energy and it is more than feasible already, for example.
Already as “sanshinseon” has mentioned, one great tourism plan that could be realized without a tremendous outlaying of money would be the bike and hiking trail that would be like Korea’s Appalachian Trail in America and, when combined with the various temples that are along this route, could offer a unique opportunity for cultural tourism. This trail would run the length of the country and, though not as glamorous as a “grand” canal would be less of a logistical problem to deal with. It would take a reputable public relations effort to promote this and the political will to see it done and maintain its effectiveness. Actually, Dave Mason should be writing about this rather than me since he is intimate with this subject and knows much more than I do but this plan could be refined even further.
Frankly, a focused return to developing better agribusiness policy and a focus upon organic farming and fertilizers would help people in the country-side as well help Korea in regards to the looming problems with importing grains and the world-wide shortage of such. Already LMB’s government is promoting organic fertilizers more since this will help Korean farmers to deal with the steadily growing price of chemical fertilizers and could help position farmers that want to go organic, due to the increased interest in organic foods domestically and internationally. If Park Chung-hee took Koreans out of the country-side, then it may very well be time to return to it, due to the increasing concerns over such. I’m hoping the new Minister of Agriculture will have better ideas about such because this issue will become more than just helping out Korean farmers in the future.
I could go on but then I would be spending much more time doing diligent research and no one is paying me for such. Public awareness and the discussion of these issues do indirectly help though and I am all for that.
What I find quaint in the above comments is the apparent equation of “rural” with “agriculture.” It’s like equating St. Louis with simply being a corn trading hub. The problem is that because of the lopsided nature of Seoul-centric Korea, there is a generally assumed denial of industry beyond what is found in a few major cities. When in fact there is — and could be more — industry and other economic factors beyond agriculture for much of the nation if folks can get over their Seoul fixation.
I agree with the above comments regarding deregulation of land use. But I wonder if regulation is the major hold back. But this not to say government has no responsibility when it has passively, de facto encouraged the best of Korean youth to migrate to primarily one city in search of opportunity.
I find amusing the comparison of what has been done in Ireland with Disneyland by a person whom I suspect has more likely ridden the Matterhorn roller coaster than a boat on Ireland’s Shannon-Erne Waterway. Score another point for that mindset!
We can have honest disagreements about the wisdom about the canal in general. But to assume someone, such as 2MB, who has decades of major construction experience, is not bringing specialists into the project — even at the conceptial level, which is the standard M.O. of every major construction undertaking to be incredibly naive. Don’t you think he would cover his tail before making such an audacious proposal? This is an area he has a hell of a lot of experience. But hey! who is he to argue with experts who spend their free time blogging?
I still fail to see how criticism of digging a canal/ditch somehow considering the development of the countryside as being a waste of resources? If we’re really worried about wasting resources, where’s the scrutiny of how much this will cost, how likely it is to pay for itself, how likely it is to be completed (remember that presidential terms are only 5 years long) and so on… Fairly speaking, it should be incumbent upon Mr. Lee to offer up some facts and figures for the people and be open for comment as to better ways to spend the money.
I’d also take issue with the idea that a canal is somehow going to draw people and capital out of Seoul to spread out along the countryside. After all, a canal is by nature only going to bring any kind of development to a very narrow path, not to the countryside in general. Sure, you might end up extending the sprawl of Seoul out along the canal path as condos and officetels pop up to take advantage of what I’m sure will be a lovely view (assuming it’s not just a dirty ditch), but how far is that facade of prosperity going to extend out into the countryside? A few miles? What will we find once we walk on away from the canal, past the Canal Venus Prince (Worldcup 88) love hotel? A countryside that’s better-off for having a canal dug through it?
Is Hyundai going to move their world headquarters from wherever the heck they are (probably Seoul) to Mungyeong? Will Posco open up a new steel mill there? Scenic waterways notwithstanding, what would be the advantage?
Zonath, you’re missing the point. Seoul will not extend down to the countryside. Rather, something like a country-length canal will stem the almost forced migration from the countryside to Seoul.
This is NOT ABOUT SEOUL. It’s about the rest of Korea.
We and many Koreans need to let go of thinking in primarily Seoulite terms and think more in national terms. Seoul is not, I repeat, is not Korea; it is simply the largest city in Korea.
And, I dare say, the canal may foster new forms of enterprise we have yet to see as local people reassess what they can do locally and profitably.
Tom,
I know full well that Seoul is not Korea. In the six years I lived in Korea, I spent about a grand total of maybe 10 nights within 80km of Seoul.
But again, I’m still failing to see how a canal is going to keep anyone in the countryside, especially in the countryside away from the canal. That’s my point… the thinking about this canal seems to be along the lines of “canal … profit” without too much thinking about what exactly is going to go in the middle there. Again, if someone comes up with a reason why digging a canal would be a better idea than changing the trillion or so won that the canal would cost and using it to build a road paved with 10 won coins (or a trillion won in tax breaks for companies that build production facilities outside Seoul, even) then we’d be getting somewhere. Realistically though, unless you’re actually going to dig the canal around Seoul and fill it with piranhas, I don’t see how it’s going to keep people from emigrating away from the countryside.
Since you ask:
Some measures to end the value-destroying economics of the chaebol. Looking at their books (such as they are), chaebol after chaebol reports profit margins of about 5%. This, in fact, is not profit (no value added), as it doesn’t even cover their cost of capital. Considering the size of their assets, we could literally liquidate most of the chaebol, sell off all their assets, and put the money into T-bills or bank CDs, and make more money than the chaebol have shown themselves capable of generating.
How to fix? A few ways: end cross-shareholding, require consolidated financial statements, enforce majority outside Diretors of the Board. Why? Because their dividend payout ratios are abysmal. Most of their reported profits get parked in “Retained Earnings”, which increases their paper assets, but doesn’t benefit common-people shareholders. It doesn’t put any more cash into circulation. As their assets grow, their return on assets shrinks. If their true finances were revealed, and outside Directors in majority on the Boards, then these profits could be distributed to shareholders. Everyday Koreans, that is.
They typical listed chaebol company is about one-third owned by the “family”, another third by foreigners, another third by Koreans. That’s a thrid of Korea Inc.’s export profits that could be distributed to all the Koreans out there who have pieces of mutual funds. End Part I.
Next, do something about key money. I don’t know what sort of law to pass, but I’m generally not in favor of the government passing laws on how markets should operate (look at the past administration’s record on real estate policy).
But this key money thing is brutal. The effect is that every family that doesn’t own a home ties up several years’ worth of income in a non-interest bearing deposit. Same goes for most commercial property. This massive chunk of change largely ends up in banks, who largely lend it to chaebol, who, per the above, destroy it slowly.
If that money could somehow be pulled back out of the chaebol and turned back to the country’s citizens, I think that would be a pretty welcome bit of “redistribution”. End part 2.