Labor scholars have argued that economic structural differences between Korea
and Taiwan are accountable for the divergent development of labor relations and union
capacities (Choi 1995, Shin 1994, Chu 1998, Huang 1999, Kwon 2000). From the
structural perspective, labor militancy in Korea comes from organized workers in large
conglomerates, chaebols, whereas Taiwanese workers mostly employed in small and
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) remain unable to stage the same level of mobilization
due to collective action problems and the high risk associated with contentious activism
in small firms.
However, the share of SMEs
in terms of their number, employees, and
contribution to national production, as shown in Table 1, do not exactly support this
myth of “chaebol versus SME contrast.” The structural differences, particularly the
proportion of conglomerates and SMEs, are less evident between Korea and Taiwan to
begin with. The proportion of employment across different firm sizes, which is the most
critical aspect for union organization, shows an interesting fact: as of 2002 a greater
share of the labor force is employed in SMEs in Korea than in Taiwan (86.7 percent
versus 78.1 percent).
[Table 2 about here]
6
Korea and Taiwan do not use an identical indicator of SMEs: for Korea SMEs are firms employing less
than 300 workers while for Taiwan less than 200 workers.
9
Convention