Screen quota. protectionist policy? Limiting the number of international movies? This was used as a way to build up the screen film industry in South Korea. Should it be used in other forms as well? Even though Kpop has a solid fan base, should there be limitations on other kinds of music? What about television? Too much American television in Korea?
Is this unfair protectionist policy from the government? If it is unfair, what would you have suggested that South Korean government should have done to help develop the Korean film industry? I definitely think that it is developing more and more, and the limit on the number of wait days that an international movie has decreased. Is it stable enough that it should be removed completely?
Protectionist policy was actually much more common when Korea implemented this policy, keep in mind. There were other countries that were using protectionist policy, as did the United States. It is rooted in two major political economist theorists: Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Both believed that the domestic industry should be protected by restricting imports. Smith, if you guys aren't up-to-date on the political philosophy is the writer of Theory of the Moral Sentiment, considered to be the foundation of laissez-faire. If that still doesn't ring a bell, Smith is considered foundation of later thought of "deregulation", and the thought that the market should rule and the state should actually have less role in the market. What are theorists saying about protectionist policy today? They suggest (for e.g. developmental state theory) that the state can play a role in limiting foreign direct investment and investing in domestic industry. This protectionist policy is not as strong in the developed countries, but what about developing countries that might need this kind of policy? In today's globalized world, is it possible to actually limit the role of globalization and foreign countries. Others say no, theory of hyperglobalists are saying that we are living in a Global Age, that the state's role has largely gone down, and it is now the age of global governance. The role of interest groups are more important than state influence. OR do you think more like transformationalists, who think that globalization is significant and new, but the state can and still does play a role in development, it just needed to restructure.
As I alluded to, can developing countries today implement protectionist policy like the screen quota?
And it is also applicable in other industries. Even today, there is an import tax on non-Korean cars that make Korean-made cars cheaper and more affordable.
Government role on the development of the film industry. This is also applicable to the Kpop industry as well, with censorship and also using the Hallyu wave to promote Korean culture. Where do these areas intertwine? Too much government role? Or just enough? Maybe not enough? Keep your own lense in mind when answering this question. What country are you from, and how do you feel about government role in your own country?
Hopefully, I answer the question you are asking and do not go too off topic. I believe that the purpose for a country to issue a protectionist policy is to preserve the culture and wealth of their country. I feel that it helps that a country be self reliable on their own people for goods and services instead of over relying on other countries. However, i do not condone that the government fully restrict any other goods or services from other countries because it will not stop people from obtaining them; if the people want these imported goods or services, they will find them one way or the other. This kind of behavior comes from government's want to exert control over everything hence people retaliate. I say this because this policy occurs in very many countries around the world like you stated but there is a limit to how it is exercised in every country. For example, i'm from Uganda, and although my country is welcome to other goods and services, they promote goods and services sold by our people more by advertising on TV, billboards, in supermarkets and even the goods themselves. Another way to preserve a country's wealth and culture without eradicating any goods from other nations is by putting an import tax on those goods like you suggested. All in all, i believe that the government should have some role in the promotion of their culture but not too much that they limit the people's chance to become more cultured about other countries.
ReplyDeleteNot off topic at all. Interesting lense that you have. I edited my post a little bit to add some globalization theory. I am curious, from your perspective, can government implement protectionist policy in today's society to help develop an industry. And true, full restriction might not be as tolerated from the citizens, but what about also from the other states? How does the relationship between countries play an important factor? Political relationships are important, particularly in a globalized market. For example, even in South Korea's case, the screen quota was controversial in the sense that it was literally limiting the import of U.S. movies, which was a market (and U.S. is more based on the belief of the strength of the market versus state regulation, with the market coming out as the strong institution in the second image of the state).
ReplyDeleteWhat role does global hierarchy play? Even if your government is promoting more Ugandan goods, I wonder how much impact it had? That is really interesting though, that there is more advertisement of local goods. If U.S. goods are cheaper, though, would people buy Ugandan goods or U.S. goods?
Your last point is interesting as well. What happens if the government promotes in way of limiting other cultures? Isn't that the most effective way? promoting yourself by restricting others, because if you don't, then why else would someone have incentive to buy Ugandan goods over U.S.? Even putting an import tax is, in a way, restricting.
Thanks, and interesting information about Uganda.