IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Does Class Matter? Social Cleavages in South Korea's Electoral Politics in the Era of Neoliberalism

Listed author(s):
  • Wonik Kim
Registered author(s):

    This paper analyzes class voting in South Korea under neoliberalism. The class voting literature has paid too little attention to cases outside Europe and North America, while the existing studies on South Korea's elections and voting patterns have largely ignored the issue of class. The lack of interest in class voting is due mainly to strong regionalism prevalent in South Korea's electoral politics. However, the rapid and profound neoliberalization after the 1997 financial crisis has generated negative socioeconomic consequences, which may have increased the importance of a class-based bloc as a salient electoral factor. Using Goldthorpe's class schema, I test the validity of class voting in South Korea, employing microlevel survey data of the two recent parliamentary elections of 2000 and 2004. I pay particular attention to entrenched conservatism that is historically rooted in South Korea's electoral and representative systems. I formulate this vital issue in terms of a possible connection between people's decisions on whether to vote (or for that matter, nonvoting) and for whom they vote (their vote choice). The empirical evidence in this paper suggests that people vote according to their class positions in the context of the swift neoliberal restructuring in South Korea.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Review of Political Economy.

    Volume (Year): 22 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 589-616

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:22:y:2010:i:4:p:589-616
    DOI: 10.1080/09538259.2010.510320
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:22:y:2010:i:4:p:589-616. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.