IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cbscwp/311857.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Elite control through marriage over institutional change

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Francis D.
  • Raj, Prateek

Abstract

Economic inequality remains a persistent and widely studied issue in the social sciences. South Korea provides a striking example where the top 23 business groups, controlled by ultra-wealthy, family-owned conglomerates (chaebols), have maintained significant economic persistence and resisted outsider entry, even amidst the disruptive forces of the 21st-century digital age. This study sheds light on how chaebol families have strategically evolved their use of marriage alliances as a key channel to political networks, significantly shaping the dynamics of elite influence over time. In the pre-democratic era, chaebols often formed marriages with politicians to strengthen their influence and boost corporate value. For example, the 2024 divorce between SK Group's Chey Tae-won and Roh So-young, daughter of former President Roh Tae-woo, highlights how such alliances helped secure key advantages, like SK's telecom permit in the 1980s (BBC News, 2024.5). However, marriages with other elites or commoners didn't provide the same benefits. Contrary to the perspective presented by The Economist (2015.4) that such practices among Korean chaebols are enduring, this study finds that blood-based alliances between politicians and elite businessmen was a temporal, institution-specific strategy that have largely disappeared in the democratic era. As South Korea transitioned to a more liberalized regime, the frequency of these political marriages has drastically declined, as confirmed by our analysis. Instead, chaebol families have adapted by leveraging elite marriages within their own business circles to sustain family control over top business groups. These practices have ensured their continued economic dominance while limiting outsider entry into their exclusive networks. This study documents the evolution of marriage alliances as a critical mechanism through which chaebols have navigated changing institutional landscapes, maintaining their entrenched economic power despite shifting political and social conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Francis D. & Raj, Prateek, 2025. "Elite control through marriage over institutional change," Working Papers 354, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cbscwp:311857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/311857/1/1917820410.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Georgi Kocharkov & Cezar Santos, 2014. "Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 348-353, May.
    2. Kock, Carl J & Guillen, Mauro F, 2001. "Strategy and Structure in Developing Countries: Business Groups as an Evolutionary Response to Opportunities for Unrelated Diversification," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(1), pages 77-113, March.
    3. Randall K. Morck, 2005. "A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number morc05-1, June.
    4. Ishtiaq Mahmood & Chi-Nien Chung & Will Mitchell, 2013. "The Evolving Impact of Combinatorial Opportunities and Exhaustion on Innovation by Business Groups as Market Development Increases: The Case of Taiwan," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1142-1161, May.
    5. Bunkanwanicha, Pramuan & Fan, Joseph P. H. & Wiwattanakantang, Yupana, 2013. "The Value of Marriage to Family Firms," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 611-636, April.
    6. Mara Faccio, 2006. "Politically Connected Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 369-386, March.
    7. David Schoenherr, 2019. "Political Connections and Allocative Distortions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(2), pages 543-586, April.
    8. Raymond Fisman, 2001. "Estimating the Value of Political Connections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1095-1102, September.
    9. Dyckman, T & Philbrick, D & Stephan, J, 1984. "A Comparison Of Event Study Methodologies Using Daily Stock Returns - A Simulation Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22, pages 1-30.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jintao Zhang & Zhen Yang & Li Meng & Lu Han, 2022. "Environmental regulations and enterprises innovation performance: the role of R&D investments and political connections," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4088-4109, March.
    2. Huang, Shaoqing & Xie, Weisi & Xu, Xiaoshu, 2024. "Bureaucracy-business relationship, corruption and the implications for marketization," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 634-644.
    3. Michelson, Noam, 2023. "The revolving door of former civil servants and firm value: A comprehensive approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    4. Li, Zhimin & Cheng, Lei, 2020. "What do private firms do after losing political capital? Evidence from China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Colonnelli, Emanuele & Lagaras, Spyridon & Ponticelli, Jacopo & Prem, Mounu & Tsoutsoura, Margarita, 2022. "Revealing corruption: Firm and worker level evidence from Brazil," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 1097-1119.
    6. Chung, Chi-Nien & Mahmood, Ishtiaq & Mitchell, Will, 2009. "Political Connections and Business Strategy: The Impact of Types and Destinations of Political Ties on Business Diversification in Closed and Open Political Economic," CEI Working Paper Series 2008-24, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    7. Albuquerque, Rui & Lei, Zicheng & Rocholl, Jörg & Zhang, Chendi, 2020. "Citizens United vs. FEC and corporate political activism," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Xie, Rui & Zhang, Jiahuan & Tang, Chuan, 2023. "Political connection and water pollution: New evidence from Chinese listed firms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    9. Colin P. Green & Swarnodeep Homroy, 2022. "Incorporated in Westminster: Channels and Returns to Political Connection in the United Kingdom," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 377-408, April.
    10. Park, SeHyun, 2023. "Profitability of politically corrupt firms: Evidence from Romania," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    11. Carney, Richard W. & Child, Travers Barclay & Li, Xiang, 2020. "Board connections and crisis performance: Family, state, and political networks," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    12. Patricio Duran & Marcelo Ortiz & Michael Carney, 2024. "More than Money: Political Participation by Elite Business Families," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 48(6), pages 1495-1524, November.
    13. Carney, Michael & Estrin, Saul & Van Essen, Marc & Shapiro, Daniel, 2017. "Business groups reconsidered: beyond paragons and parasites," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87340, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Adam Szeidl & Ferenc Szucs, 2021. "Media Capture Through Favor Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 281-310, January.
    15. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & Sinziana Dorobantu & Aseem Kaul & Bennet Zelner, 2017. "Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 114-140, January.
    16. Xu, Nianhang & Yuan, Qingbo & Jiang, Xuanyu & Chan, Kam C., 2015. "Founder's political connections, second generation involvement, and family firm performance: Evidence from China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 243-259.
    17. Chang, Yuyuan & Pan, Xiaofei & Wang, Jianling & Zhou, Qing, 2021. "Depoliticization and corporate cash holdings: Evidence from the mandated resignation of directors in China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Li, Mingsheng & Liu, Desheng & Peng, Hongfeng & Zhang, Luxiu, 2022. "Political connection and its impact on equity market," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Guglielmo Barone & Guido de Blasio & Elena Gentili, 2020. "Politically connected cities: Italy 1951-1991," Working Papers wp1158, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    20. Yuping Deng & Yanrui Wu & Helian Xu, 2020. "Political Connections and Firm Pollution Behaviour: An Empirical Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 867-898, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:cbscwp:311857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsuchus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.