Editor's Note: Ethnicity, Migration, and Governance in Korea

This edition of Pacific Focus showcases a suite of five scholarly articles that manifest a diverse array of methodologies, merging theoretical discussions with historical case analyses. The first three articles address the incorporation of new demographic groups – namely foreign immigrants, overseas Koreans, and refugees – into South Korean society since the post–Cold War period of the 1990s.1 These articles particularly delineate the influx of these varied immigrant groups, reflecting the shifts within a globalizing South Korean milieu and its adaptive responses to such changes. Traditionally, Korea was a bastion of ethnic uniformity. Yet, this narrative began its evolution in the post–Cold War era as Korea transitioned from a land of emigration to one of immigration. This period saw the introduction of foreigners, overseas Koreans, refugees, and North Korean defectors into the fabric of South Korean society, reshaping its social terrain through their interactions within the nation. These groups have risen to prominence as critical elements for comprehending the contemporary South Korean societal construct and have exerted an expanding influence on Korea's global interactions. Thus, Korean Studies scholarship in the domain of ethnicity, migration, and identity politics has burgeoned in the 21st century, highlighting interest in the internationalization of Korean society, governance by the Korean government of new societal members, and the resultant interplays, perceptions, attitudes, policies, and regulatory frameworks. While the initial three articles concentrate on the governance of foreign immigrants, overseas Koreans, and refugees by the Korean government, the subsequent two articles pivot to explore Overseas Koreans who have departed from Korea and established lives abroad. These articles underscore the significance of their ethnicity, their social and cultural capital, and the networks they form.2 The diaspora's journey to the northeastern territories of China and the Russian Far East, initiated in the 1860s and later evolving into structured labor migration to Hawaii in 1903, has notably impacted Korean societal dynamics. These Overseas Koreans have harnessed their heterogeneous social, economic, and cultural resources to forge networks anchored in their ethnic identities, thereby influencing not only their own communities but also the societies of their resident nations and Korea itself. Collectively, these articles provide an exhaustive overview of the historical trajectories of migration, ethnic identity, networks, and the intricate mosaic of governance and interactions between immigrants and South Korean society. The opening article by Sangtu Ko ignites an intellectual debate on immigration policy governance. Ko introduces the concept of multi-layered governance (MLG), characterized as a paradigm that transcends the traditional confines of government structures, comprising a collaborative framework that includes a multiplicity of actors extending beyond mere government entities. The article contends that immigration policy scholarship has progressively embraced an MLG framework, capturing the intricate interplay between central and local authorities, as well as between governmental and non-governmental agents. This evolution offers critical insights for understanding and refining the execution of immigration policies within various sociopolitical landscapes. Despite the critical role local governments play in the efficacious implementation of immigration policies, the discourse posits that within Korea, their authority remains curtailed, with immigration directives predominantly managed through centralized systems. The article suggests that local governments are tasked primarily with the enactment of directives from higher echelons, necessitating an empowerment that endows them with greater authority and responsibility, particularly when offering direct administrative support to immigrants in their locales. It advocates for a strategic reallocation of responsibilities between central and local governments to substantially enhance the efficacy of immigration policies. The Korean government's commitment is manifest in the Framework Plan on Immigration Policy (2018–2022), which earnestly seeks to establish consultative bodies bridging central and local governments, strengthen cooperation and exchange, and fortify the roles and infrastructure of local administrative bodies. These initiatives herald a transformative shift, repositioning local governments from marginal actors to central participants in the policymaking sphere. This treatise identifies the National Multicultural City Council (NMCC) and the Multicultural Immigrants Plus Center (MIPC) as quintessential case studies for examining the interplay between central and local governments and the dynamics among various local governments. The NMCC is extolled for offering insights into the relationships between local governments, whereas the MIPC stands as a paragon of the synergistic relationship between central and local administrative entities. Launched in 2017, the MIPC is championed as a holistic facility offering a comprehensive suite of administrative services to immigrants, thereby negating the necessity for interfacing with multiple agencies to acquire stay permits, employment documentation, and counseling services. The fiscal model of the MIPC involves a cost-sharing scheme in which local governments provide premises and cover operational costs, while participating ministries bear specific expenses related to personnel, communication, and office materials. Founded in 2019, the NMCC convenes biannually, operating as a platform for collaboration, policy discourse, and collective education among local governments, thus facilitating effective collaboration with central authorities and serving as a pivotal mechanism for the advancement of immigration policies. Ko's assessment of the NMCC and MIPC elucidates the functional aspects of local immigration policy governance in Korea, offering an analytical perspective on the cooperative dynamics prevalent within the nation's immigration policy framework. If the aforementioned article scrutinizes the governance of foreign immigrants in Korean society, Jean Young Lee's article delves into Korea's governance of overseas compatriots within the immigrant community. In an intellectual context marked by a scarcity of theoretical discourse on diaspora governance, Lee employs a theoretical framework derived from an International Organization for Migration report on the role of the diaspora in development to clarify the governance structures pertaining to overseas Koreans. This theoretical exploration is mapped through a progression of five stages: identifying goals and capacities, understanding diasporas, fostering trust, mobilizing stakeholders, and ensuring sustained engagement of the diaspora in development. Lee emphasizes that stakeholder mobilization, cultivated through the initial stages, epitomizes the governance system shaped by the collaboration between the government, diasporas, and civil society. After providing an overview of the status and migration history of overseas Koreans, Lee indicates that Korea's policy focus on this group has intensified as human mobility increased in the post–Cold War era. As Korea evolved from an emigrant to an immigrant-receiving country, the historically homogeneous Korean society was infused with new demographic elements, including overseas Koreans. Initial policies favoring overseas Koreans were predicated on kinship, conferring advantages on those sharing ethnic ties. Yet, Lee points out that the legislative process encountered challenges, notably due to the exclusion of overseas Koreans from China and the former Soviet Union, who had migrated prior to the establishment of the Republic of Korea, within the ambit of the Overseas Koreans Act. This led to significant debate concerning the development of governance frameworks for these overseas compatriots. Lee highlights that prior to the firm establishment of governance for overseas Koreans, their needs and concerns were largely overshadowed by broader immigration governance frameworks. Despite being the most substantial immigrant group within Korean society, overseas Koreans faced a marginalization that persisted until the implementation of a new immigration governance system in 2007, which remained operational until 2023. Lee stresses that the inauguration of the Overseas Koreans Agency and the Basic Act on Overseas Koreans in 2023 heralds a novel approach to governance for overseas Koreans in Korea, one that amalgamates prior fragmented legislative efforts and centers governance on the specific needs of overseas compatriots rather than the wider immigrant populace. Despite these advancements, Lee observes that issues from the 2007 governance framework persist, particularly in the execution of policies. The legal and systemic matrix encompassing overseas nationals, ethnic Koreans with foreign nationality, citizens, and foreigners remains complex and opaque, with legislative processes not adequately reflecting the viewpoints of overseas compatriots. Although jurisdiction over domestic policies for compatriots is nominally under the Overseas Koreans Agency, the enactment of precise policies remains ambiguous. Corroborating Ko's analysis, Lee notes that the central government retains a pivotal role in the governance of overseas compatriots. While Ko's article comprehensively discusses immigrants within a general scope, and Jean Young Lee's discourse is centered on overseas Koreans, Seokwoo Lee's work rigorously examines the legal and institutional frameworks of South Korea as they pertain to a distinct segment of immigrants: refugees. Lee underscores that South Korea, after ratifying the Refugee Convention and its Protocol in 1992, was a pioneer within East Asia by legislating its own refugee law in 2013. Lee observes that despite this landmark achievement, South Korea has been the subject of critical scrutiny due to its notably low rate of refugee acceptance. This critical examination of South Korea's refugee policy escalated when approximately 500 Yemeni nationals sought asylum in Jeju Island via visa-free entry in early 2018. This influx ignited fervent debates among responsible entities, notably the Ministry of Justice and international non-governmental organizations such as the Global Refugee Forum, as well as local civil society and legal practitioners. Consequently, a revised Refugee Act was tabled in 2021, heralding prospective changes in the adjudication of refugee status, with a particular focus on the stages of appeal and reapplication. In an analysis of refugee application statistics within South Korea, Lee illuminates a pervasive concern among nations grappling with refugees: the delicate act of balancing the impetus for offering sanctuary against the necessity for stringent border control and national security measures. Lee meticulously dissects key stipulations of South Korea's Refugee Act, the proposed legislative amendments thereto, and consequential court decisions that bear upon refugee matters. Lee critiques the Refugee Act's limitations by indicating that “[i]n the Immigration Control Act, legislated from a vantage point of immigration control as opposed to refugee protection, the stipulations pertaining to refugees fall short of constituting a robust legal framework that safeguards the human rights of refugees.” Nevertheless, Lee concedes the importance of instituting a foundational standard of refugee protection that aligns with international benchmarks and secures refugee rights. Lee delineates four salient features of the prospective Partial Amendment to the Refugee Act within the government's legislative proposal. These encompass the scrutiny process for eligibility of refugee status reapplicants and the potential exclusion thereof, the annulment of refugee status following voluntary repatriation, the broadening of bases for constraining administrative litigation claims, and the imposition of punitive measures for the submission of spurious refugee applications. Upon a meticulous evaluation of these legislative elements, Lee remarks that they mirror South Korea's reinforced dedication to refining the caliber of governmental decisions in the process of ascertaining refugee status and to bolstering its support for those recognized as refugees, for individuals granted humanitarian stay, and for asylum seekers. Lee's analysis culminates in the affirmation of the essential duty of governments and judicial systems at the national level to provide sanctuary for refugees, which encompasses the development of explicit frameworks for financial and physical safeguards, all the while placing emphasis on the central government's pivotal role within this process. While the initial trio of articles evaluate the governance of immigration, overseas Koreans, and refugees within Korea from a broad analytical perspective, the subsequent two contributions offer an in-depth examination of historical issues concerning overseas Koreans, adopting a more detailed, nuanced viewpoint. Jinsook Bae's article illuminates the entrepreneurial endeavors of a picture bride during the Korean immigration wave to Hawaii that commenced in 1903. Drawing from the autobiography of a renowned picture bride, Yun Hee Chun, Bae discusses the impetuses driving female immigrants and their strategies for survival through employment and matrimony. Additionally, the article surveys the lodging industry in Hawaii, concentrating on capital, labor, and consumer-related issues, and investigates how gender dynamics influenced Chun's initiation and management of the lodging enterprise, facilitated by her integration into the Korean network. Bae posits that from a social capital perspective, Chun adeptly marshaled social capital and networks via Korean women's organizations in Hawaii, accentuating the cultural nuances unique to ethnic communities and the relational patterns intrinsic to economic adaptation. Bae observes that the initial generation of immigrants nurtured members of the Korean diaspora, enabling the establishment of predominant business ventures attuned to the exigencies of each host country. This phenomenon is exemplified by the ethnic network of the Korean diaspora and its entrepreneurial activities in diverse sectors such as Brazil's clothing industry, nail salons in the USA, convenience stores in Canada, and pachinko businesses in Japan. Consequently, Chun's involvement in the lodging business not only mirrored but also contributed to the characteristic traits of the Korean network in Hawaii during that period. While prior research on the entrepreneurial activities of Korean immigrants in the USA has primarily concentrated on the post-1965 influx of Korean Americans, Bae's inquiry is notable for its original exploration of the interactions between human agents and social structures within the nascent Korean migrant community in Hawaii. Bae chronicles the trajectory of Yun Hee Chun's migration to Hawaii, her matrimonial life, her engagement with the Korean community, and the motives and hurdles she faced while venturing into the lodging industry. The article delineates the process of establishing and operating a business as a female immigrant entrenched within Hawaii's diverse ethnic milieu, utilizing ethnic networks and societal perceptions. Through this exploration, Bae emphasizes the entrepreneurial journey of Korean women immigrants and their connection to women's networks, underlining their gender identity and their roles in commerce. As a result, the article posits that picture brides were not mere passive victims of adverse circumstances but rather proactive agents with self-awareness, cultivated through their active engagement in society. Transitioning to Mina Yang's article, we are presented with an exploration of how the ethnicity of a Korean cultural group within the multicultural Soviet society of the 1970s was interlaced with the arts, evolving into an identity and image that achieved international resonance. The Korean diaspora's odyssey to the Russian Far East, which commenced in 1864, reached its 160th anniversary in 2024. Despite the diaspora's having originated during the era of the Russian Empire, the establishment of the Soviet Union saw the forced relocation of approximately 180,000 Koreans to the Central Asian steppes in 1937 under the cloud of espionage suspicions. In the aftermath of World War II, these displaced communities gravitated around newly constituted kolkhozes. Among these, the Politotdel kolkhoz positioned on the Chirchik River near Tashkent, Uzbekistan, emerged as a prosperous Korean collective farm. The leader of this kolkhoz, Hwang Man Guem, acquired fame across the Soviet Union for his wealth, which he channeled into significant investments in arts and cultural activities annually. Yang's analysis sheds light on the ethnic artistic pursuits of the “CheongChun (Youth)” and “Gayageum” ensembles within the Politotdel kolkhoz, using articles from “Lenin Kichi,” an ethnic newspaper circulated by Koreans in the Soviet Union. The “Gayageum” ensemble, heralded as the pioneering Korean performance group in the Soviet Union established in 1969, executed an array of dance performances infused with North Korean traditions alongside the gayageum and other instruments. While “Gayageum” predominantly catered to Korean audiences, Yang demonstrates that “CheongChun (Youth)” achieved renown and performed ubiquitously across the Soviet Union, extending their artistic reach to include international audiences in countries such as North Korea and the USA. Nevertheless, the deterioration of economic conditions in the 1980s led to the merging of these two ensembles. Yang accentuates the enduring importance of these groups in expressing Korean culture and life in Central Asia, despite the transformations that ensued following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. Yang's narrative illuminates the journey of Koreans in the Soviet Union, who were seen as nationals of an adversary state and forcibly relocated from the Far East to Central Asia. Confronted with the threat of identity erosion, they navigated these challenges by expressing their Korean identity through arts and culture during the 1970s, set against the tapestry of affluent kolkhozes that thrived due to their industrious efforts. Within the constraints of a regulated socialist society, the restricted scope of artistic and cultural endeavors not only fostered the reformation of networks among Koreans but also underscored their cultural presence within both the Soviet Union and their motherland, North Korea. This marks a significant point within the diaspora network, highlighting the fortitude and cultural manifestation of the Korean diaspora in a diverse Soviet society. In a broad sense, identity encompasses components such as nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, and profession, each of which can exert significant influence on how individuals perceive themselves within the framework of their community and society at large. Identity is shaped by a wide range of factors, including culture, upbringing, personal experiences, and the myriad choices one makes throughout life. On the flip side, within the context of immigration, the identity of individuals or groups can be influenced by an even broader spectrum of factors, whether in the host country or the homeland. In the age of globalization, identity politics involves the processes and interactions wherein individual or group identities inform sociopolitical perspectives, priorities, and actions across a spectrum of identity facets such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, and nationality. This special issue delves into the governance and identity with immigration in Korean society and the emigration of Koreans It scrutinizes the complex interplay and relationships between immigrants and Korean society, as well as between Korean immigrants and their host while also examining how immigrants their identities within these dynamics. This for more research by and Pacific Focus is to more examining the activities and interactions of Koreans within the global context of Korean society and the wider In Pacific Focus to providing a array of and insights to enhance understanding of Korea's role within the international community.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.