April 25, 2024

Foes of South Korea Free Trade Deal Struggle to Be Heard

There is also a new threat on the horizon. A proposed free trade agreement with South Korea, which the House and Senate are scheduled to consider this week, would open the American market to a manufacturing powerhouse that has its own high-technology textile industry.

The South Korea deal, and companion pacts with Colombia and Panama, are sailing toward approval. Both political parties are eager to show they are doing something to revive the ailing economy, and there is a broad consensus among the Obama administration, Republican leaders in Congress and many moderate Democrats that the deals will reduce costs for American consumers and increase foreign purchases of American goods and services.

That has left opponents of trade deals, like the textile industry, struggling to be heard. They say past trade agreements, which remove tariffs and other protections for domestic manufacturers, have eroded the nation’s industrial strength. The new round of deals will repeat that pattern, they say, allowing South Korean companies to flood the domestic market without creating significant export opportunities for American manufacturers.

“We are very much in favor of global trade, but we’re just not about having agreements that are unfair to the U.S. textile industry,” said Allen E. Gant Jr., chief executive of Glen Raven, a family-owned company that employs 1,500 people in the United States. “The U.S. needs every single job that we can get.”

The Obama administration renegotiated some elements of the deals — first authored by the Bush administration — to address concerns raised by trade unions and industries including automakers. The agreements are a centerpiece of its strategy to increase exports as a driver of faster economic growth, and the White House is pushing to seal the deals in time for a state visit to Washington this week by President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea.

Votes in both chambers of Congress could come as soon as Wednesday, during Mr. Lee’s scheduled visit.

“These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across the country for workers making products stamped with three proud words: Made in America,” President Obama said in a statement last week when he submitted the deals to Congress.

Economists generally argue that free trade agreements benefit all participating countries by creating a larger market for goods and services. But that benefit derives in part from the movement of some activities to the lower-cost countries. In other words, even if the deal is good for the United States as a whole, it is likely to create clear losers.

The government estimated in 2007 that the deals would increase annual economic output by up to $14.4 billion, or about one-tenth of one percent. Most of that demand would come from South Korea, which would join a short list of developed nations that have free trade pacts with the United States, including Australia, Canada, Israel and Singapore.

But the study by the United States International Trade Commission found that the deals would cost jobs in some industries, and it singled out the textile industry as one likely to face the largest blow.

Highland Industries, a Greensboro, N.C., company that employs 680 people at two factories, manufactures a kind of fabric that is used to reinforce the roof coverings on commercial buildings like big-box stores. The massive rolls of fabric can be 12 feet wide and 5,000 yards in length.

South Korean companies already sell similar material at prices 15 to 20 percent below Highland’s. Bret Kelley, a Highland executive, said the company was able to compete on speed and customer service, but he said that could change if the trade agreement passed because the tariff reductions would allow South Korean companies to lower prices by another 10 percent.

“We’re quick and nimble, and we forge strong relationships, but what we’re selling is a commoditized product,” Mr. Kelley said. “Those companies will start looking away for savings of 25 and 30 percent.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b573d6866cc1b386b7d8a174b4fe7c3f

South Korean Family Conglomerates Pressured

SEOUL — In Parliament, lawmakers call them “beasts.” Newspaper editorials liken them to unfettered predators robbing ordinary people of their livelihood. President Lee Myung-bak, once an ally, has withdrawn his promise to cut taxes for them, instead urging them to win “respect from the people” by doing more to help the poor.

This is not a happy time for the chaebol, the family-controlled conglomerates of South Korea.

Abroad, they may finally be getting the recognition they have so long striven for, with their cars and cellphones competing in global markets. But at home, as one conservative mass-circulation daily, the Chosun Ilbo, noted in a recent editorial, they are attacked “like public enemies.”

Koreans have grown more uneasy as increasing consumer prices and rising household debts have squeezed their standard of living. Meanwhile, the big conglomerates have generated healthy profits for their owners and expanded their international reach.

“People got disillusioned when they saw big businesses make record profits and roar in the global markets but their own lives got worse,” said Kim Byoung-kweon, an economist at Corea Institute for New Society.

The chaebol and the government are grappling with the rising discontent.

“If you are successful abroad but fail at home, you can’t call that a success,” Chung Mong-joon, one of the country’s leading business magnates, said in a telephone interview, referring to the image problem the chaebol face in South Korea. “Our businesses need to build ties with ordinary citizens.”

Mr. Chung’s Hyundai Heavy Industries, the world’s largest shipbuilder, offers a typical chaebol success story of a family business built up into an industrial giant. Now, he and his peers are trying to show their social conscience.

Last month, Mr. Chung, also a national legislator with presidential ambitions, and his brothers, all owners of Hyundai subsidiaries, made donations worth 1 trillion won, or $930 million, to help needy students and young job seekers.

Even though a sizable amount of the money donated had been pledged years earlier to atone for corruption scandals, Mr. Lee lauded the acts of charity as “a cultural change” in a country where rich businessmen are often accused of bequeathing their fortunes to their children, rather than sharing them with the general populace.

In a further attempt to woo the broader public, Mr. Lee’s government and the governing Grand National Party said last week that they would suspend tax cuts for big businesses, increase subsidies for low-wage temporary workers and reduce college tuition.

Those measures were criticized as “utter populism” by the daily newspaper Munhwa Ilbo. But Mr. Lee was seeking to counter successful efforts by his political opponents to tap the discontent over income disparities.

Since last year, the governing party has lost a series of local and parliamentary special elections. The opposition has seized on the perceived economic “polarization” to galvanize voters.

“It has become a fashion among politicians to bash the rich and chaebol to win votes,” said Kwon Hyuk-cheol of the pro-business Center for Free Enterprise.

The conglomerates are in some ways victims of their own hard-driven success.

While struggling to rebuild the economy after the 1950-53 Korean War, the military dictators of South Korea favored a handful of families with tax benefits, special loans, anti-labor policies, cheap electricity and other subsidies. They grew into industrial giants, each commanding a fleet of subsidiaries. The policy also left South Koreans with a belief that they had participated in and made sacrifices for the achievements of the chaebol, said Mr. Kim of the Corea Institute.

Today, conglomerates like Samsung, Hyundai and LG ship more than 70 percent of the country’s exports, which in turn account for half its gross domestic product. They also dominate domestic markets for cars, TV sets, credit cards and cellphones.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4f85762d7a7e40f3628ea7ceed1abd84