One the one hand you have the world's 11th biggest economy, and Asia's third or fourth largest, on par with India and behind Japan and China. 40 years ago, it's standard of living and economic state was on the same level as that of the poorer countries of Africa and Asia (read: very bad). Now it rivals some European countries. The country is prosperous, has a very good infrastructure, and is generally well to do.


On the other side, you have one of the poorest countries in the world. Virtually no infrastructure, a population that has been literally starving to death, is completely brainwashed, forced to be subject to a totalitarian regime that borders on being a cult (and in many ways is). It's population is so mal-nutritioned that the average height of the North Korean is in some parts 1 entire foot below that of the South Korean counterpart. It is basically a tabula rasa; there is almost nothing to build away from because there is almost no useful industrial equipment at all.


So...


You have these two portions of Korea, on two politically, economically, and culturally different sides. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that somehow the two parts are joined together finally, with the conflict having come to a conclusion.

What we then have is people waking up to the reality that a poor and dilapidated country of 21-22m will have to compete with and rely on a prosperous country with 48.5m. The difference are so vast that it will take generations to reach some kind of equilibrium at the upper level.

For one, the unemployment among North Koreans will be ridiculously high; they are behind South Koreans in every single field. Setting up a decent education system will take a generation at the least, and wouldn't do much to help adults who will find it much harder to change their pattern of living.


So, what do you think?


P.S: Germany was bad/so-so, but it's nothing like the N/S Korea re-unification would be. The Democratic Republic of Germany had a GDP per capita of $12,500, which would be good even by today's standards. It was at 2/3rds of the Federal Republic of Germany's level (per capita wise; W Ger = $18,370 in 1989). Today, unemployment is still higher in the East than it is in the West. Over a decade on, there are still disparities. Also, unlike W. Germany, S. Korea does not have $100B to pump into the North. Granted it will need less, but even so relatively it'd be a greater amount. I know that the US would help, obviously, but the US can't do much to help the social and psychological issues that the two countries will have to deal with.

box, two points:

First, the GDP of East Germany was vastly overstated, for the simple fact that the USSR was pumping a lot of money there (and into other Soveit-bloc countries).

As for North Korea: instead of re-uniting with the South, the better course of action (assuming the nutcase is gone and a reforms are taking place) would be to let it develop itself. Adjusting to the SOuth Korean standards would be insanely hard, like you said, and it won't be worth it for either country.

Krem, the fact that the USSR pumped money into the East just proves that the East was in an economic situation that N. Korea couldn't even dream of at this moment. I'm not sure what China's relationship with NK is, but it's obviously not on par.



So in other words have it be in a transitional state until it can catch up? That'll be hard to keep control of. If the North and South are declared as one nation, I am pretty sure that there will be migration within the country. For one, families will be re-united. Secondly, if the South is at an economic advantage, I see no reason why the North Koreans would want to remain in a much worse environment than what Seoul, for example, could offer.

And if you limit their freedom of mobility, well, that's not much of a re-union now, is it?

Well, in my perfect world there would be freedom of mobility anyway, but the economic paths would be separate.

For instance, South Korea probably has a minimum wage comparable to that of the U.S. Such a wage would be simply unsustainable for North Korea resulting in large unemployment numbers. There are obviously other examples of such differing economic standards.

What that tells me is that North Korea would remain an unattractive place for Koreans. If someone is paid a much greater amount for a similar job in the southern part of the country, why should someone in the North feel obliged to remain in the north instead of trying his or her luck in the south?


I understand that the cheap labour that would result in the North could be an attraction for businesses, but there are 3 problems I see with that:

1) there is no infrastructure. Nadda. The industrial equipment is decades behind new technology, the factories if there are any are in a terrible shape, and the workforce is uneducated and inexperienced. Either the companies or the gov't would have to see things in order, but that in of itself would take a lot of time. It's enough to cancel out the benefits derived from lower wages and cheap labour.

2) Assuming for the sake of argument that businesses do end up planning to go North, and/or that the government will divert investment towards the North. That is money that could have gone to the South. I can imagine the investments running at the expense of the South, but this could have negative effects on the South's economy, which then would have fewer resources to spend on the North, further agitating the situation.

3) China and India. Both have hundreds of millions of workers, many of whom are well-educated (certainly better than N. Koreans). The governments are cooperative, the infrastructure is good, and there is cheap labour as far as the eye can see. Why spend any money on North Korea? How is a country of 22m worth the investment when it's got a neighbour with a friendlier business environment and a population of 1.3B?


US investment would have its limits also. I imagine that the Koreans would want the Americans to leave (at least, some of them). Beyond that, what exactly is there for the US to do? It does business with China and Japan, and with N. Korea gone, there is not nearly as great a security threat as there is right now.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Btw, South Korea's minimum wage is around $3, but is subject to change annually. Around 1.25M people are paid below that $3 minimum, however. So, out of 22m workers (labour force = 22.9m, unemployment 3.4%), ~6% live on an income below minimum wage.

Btw, the South is already populated enough as it is; it's smaller than all but a few US states (98,000 sq. km), yes has a pop. the size of Texas, Florida, and Georgia.


Seoul is the 2nd largest city (not Urban Region) in the world with 10.3m people living in 605 sq. km. It has a population density greater than Manhattan's.