This commentary was first published in the Journal of Democracy.

Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party won South Korea’s June 3 presidential election with 49.4 percent of the vote. The outcome was widely anticipated, given a political climate that strongly favored the liberal camp in the aftermath of the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Still, Lee’s victory was not as overwhelming as some might have expected. With 99.6 percent of the votes tallied, the two main conservative candidates — Kim Moon-soo and Lee Jun-seok — together garnered a slightly higher combined vote share of 49.5 percent (41.2 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively) Why, then, did Korean voters ultimately choose Lee Jae-myung but with a measured endorsement rather than a landslide victory, and what does it mean for Korean democracy?

This election followed a period of intense political turmoil that began with President Yoon’s declaration of martial law on December 3 of last year and his impeachment just two months ago. While the election results were expected, they still raise important questions about the future of Korean democracy. Do the last six months reflect the resilience of democratic institutions — capable of self-correction through legal and electoral processes — or, have these events exposed the fragility of Korea’s democracy, with its deep political divisions and public distrust in leadership?

In many ways, the answer is both. Civic engagement and a peaceful transfer of power during such a challenging episode suggest a strong democratic foundation. At the same time, the election outcome still shows a highly polarized electorate, underscoring the hurdles that lie ahead for Korean society and politics.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' commentary and analysis >

2017 vs. 2025

This was the second time in a decade that Korea held a snap presidential election. The first occurred eight years ago, following the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. In this regard, Koreans have grown familiar with the impeachment process and snap elections. In both instances, the impeached presidents — Park in 2017 and Yoon in 2025 — were conservatives, and both elections resulted in liberal victories, with Moon Jae-in (2017–22) and now Lee Jae-myung taking office.

The 2025 election, however, differs significantly from the 2017 contest, with important implications for Korean democracy.

First, the impeachment process this time was far more divisive. In 2017, liberal groups mobilized millions in mass protests demanding Park’s removal, and conservatives largely accepted the outcome without major resistance. In contrast, Yoon’s impeachment was extremely contentious, sparking counterprotests from conservative groups. Waving “Stop the Steal” signs, far-right movements gained strength, determined not to see a repeat of 2017, which not only led to defeat at the polls but also a brutal campaign of political retribution by the ensuing liberal government.

Second, this polarization profoundly influenced voting behavior. Even conservatives who criticized Yoon’s declaration of martial law ultimately rallied behind Kim, a candidate less critical of the controversial order. The left-right political divide had deepened during the Moon and Yoon administrations. In 2017, a centrist candidate like Ahn Cheol-soo could attract more than 20 percent of the vote. In 2025, however, such space for a centrist voice has all but vanished. The election became a fierce contest between liberals (Lee Jae-myung) and conservatives (Kim Moon-soo and Lee Jun-seok), reflecting the polarized electorate.

Third, the tense political atmosphere left little room for substantive policy debate. While important topics including artificial intelligence, energy, climate change, social reconciliation, and foreign policy were included in their campaign pledges, discussions around these issues remained superficial at best. Instead, the campaign was dominated by harsh personal attacks and negative rhetoric from all sides.

Reformer or Strongman?

Given that this was a snap election, the new administration will assume office immediately on June 4 without the usual transition period. What can we expect from the new leader, particularly regarding Korea’s democratic future?

Lee’s appeal lies in his image as a pragmatic reformer, someone who speaks to economic struggles and social inequalities facing ordinary Koreans. His personal story itself resonates deeply: Born into poverty, he overcame significant hardship to become a human-rights lawyer, then rose through the political ranks as mayor of Seongnam, a city near Seoul, and later as governor of Gyeonggi Province, the most populous province in the country, before taking the Democratic Party leadership. This dramatic personal and political ascent has inspired many Korean citizens.

Yet Lee’s candidacy has not been without controversy. He remains under multiple criminal investigations and court trials related to charges of bribery, corruption, and breaking election laws, and his often-combative style has created the perception of a deeply polarizing figure. Many conservatives view Lee as a radical populist who shows insufficient regard for democratic norms and institutional checks.

Given the mixed perception and expectation surrounding President Lee, what kind of leadership can we expect from his administration? Two possible paths seem to lie ahead for the new leader still relatively unknown to the outside world: one resembling the approach of former president Moon Jae-in, and the other inspired by the legacy of Korea’s first liberal president, Kim Dae-jung (1998–2003). The direction Lee chooses will have major implications for the future of Korean democracy.

Lee may follow in the footsteps of Moon Jae-in, leading a campaign of political retribution that pushes Korea toward illiberal democracy. Lee has personal reasons for political resentment: He was aggressively investigated by the Yoon administration and still faces ongoing legal challenges. He has spoken publicly about the need to root out what he calls “forces of insurrection,” raising concerns that he might pursue a hardline campaign similar to Moon’s controversial efforts to “eradicate deep-rooted evils.”

Lee’s party has also pledged to advance judicial reforms that could weaken the Supreme Court, which on May 1 overturned an earlier acquittal by the Seoul High Court of Lee’s criminal charge of election-law violation. With his party now holding a parliamentary majority, traditional checks and balances could be on the line. If Lee uses his consolidated executive and congressional power to settle political scores, the result will only deepen social divisions and facilitate democratic backsliding. In such a scenario, he risks being viewed in Korea and elsewhere as yet another strongman leader in a world where such figures have been on the rise.

Alternatively, Lee could chart a course akin to that of former president Kim Dae-jung, who is widely considered a respected statesman and reformer. Kim overcame intense personal hardship, including a death sentence under a military regime, and yet chose reconciliation over revenge when he took power. He formed a coalition with conservative leader Kim Jong-pil and guided the country through the Asian financial crisis with a focus on national unity and pragmatic reform. Unlike Moon, who turned over power to the conservatives after five years, Kim effectively enabled a liberal succession.

Lee, often viewed as less ideological and more pragmatic than Moon, could take a similar path — one centered on cooperation, healing, and practical solutions. This possibility appears plausible given that his key advisors on both domestic and foreign affairs are not cut from the same cloth as Moon’s inner circle. By emulating Kim’s legacy, Lee could rise above political divides and earn broad national and international respect.

What Lies Ahead?

The political drama of the last six months ended with this election, but its impact on Korea’s democracy will be enduring. On one hand, the peaceful resolution of a snap election, especially following the highly contentious impeachment process, demonstrates the strength and resilience of Korean democratic institutions. Voters remained highly engaged (turnout was 79.4 percent, the highest since 1997), and the electoral process held firm under pressure.

On the other hand, the deep partisan divides expose fissures in Korea’s democratic fabric. Mistrust in political elites, a divided society, and a highly polarized media environment often dominated by sensationalism continue to threaten constructive democratic dialogue. Moreover, the rise of populist rhetoric on both the left and right reflects an electorate increasingly driven by emotional appeals or identity politics rather than substantive policy debate or national vision. Without a concerted effort by both liberals and conservatives toward reconciliation, political polarization is likely to deepen. Bridging that divide will be one of the most critical and difficult tasks for Korean democracy.

Despite his election victory, Lee faces a challenging road ahead, both personally and politically. Since the Supreme Court overturned Lee’s acquittal of violating election law, the case is set to go back to the Seoul High Court for retrial on June 18. While the final ruling is likely to be delayed until after his term ends, the case may continue to cast a shadow over his integrity and credibility as the country’s top leader.

Lee also has the daunting task of delivering the institutional reforms promised during his campaign. In particular, he needs to follow up on his pledge to replace the current single five-year presidential term with a four-year term allowing for a subsequent reelection. This change could bring political stability, as presidents would have an incentive to perform well during their first term to secure a second one. Furthermore, a potential eight-year presidency would provide more time to implement long-term policies. Past presidents have made similar promises, but none have succeeded in realizing them. It remains to be seen whether Lee’s administration can rise above partisan politics and rebuild public trust through meaningful reforms.

Ultimately, this election has been both a stress test and a reaffirmation of Korea’s democratic resilience. It highlights the urgent need for democratic renewal, while demonstrating that, even in times of deep political division, democratic institutions and norms can endure. This lesson holds global relevance, particularly for the United States, where democracy is also being put to the test.

Gi-Wook Shin's Election Analysis in the Media

Lee Jae-myung begins his road to power. Can he fulfill his promises amid numerous challenges?
Caixin Media, June 6 (Chinese, subscription) quoted)

He survived a knife attack, stormed Parliament, and campaigned in a bulletproof vest. Now he's going to heal a country.
Politiken, June 4 (Danish, subscription) (quoted)

Lee Poised for Decisive Win in South Korea's Snap Election
AFP, June 3 (quoted)

New South Korean President Lee Takes Power After Resounding Election Win
AFP, June 3 (quoted)

The Challenges Facing South Korea's New Leader Lee
AFP, June 3 (quoted) 

Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) are putting a significant strain on families and healthcare systems worldwide, and with increasing life expectancies, they pose an escalating global challenge. As one of the world’s fastest aging economies, South Korea’s efforts to address the burden of care for people living with ADRD offer valuable lessons for other nations grappling with the social and economic pressures of the demographic transition.

A new comprehensive review of Korea’s programs and policies to promote healthy aging and diagnose, treat, and care for people living with ADRD sheds light on progress and ongoing challenges. Published in the May 2025 issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association, the review offers insights from Korea’s strategies that resonate far beyond its borders.

The co-authors – Stanford health economist Karen Eggleston, the director of APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP), and Daejung Kim, an associate research fellow at the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs – focus on recent policies supporting “aging in place” for independent seniors and palliative care for those needing greater support.

Eggleston and Kim used a mixed-methods review of dementia care in Korea over the past 25 years, combining a critical analysis of peer-reviewed social science and health policy studies in both English and Korean, quantitative analysis of Korean statistical agency data compared with other OECD countries, and interviews with local policymakers and welfare administrators in a region with a high proportion of elderly population.

• Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' research updates >
• Learn more about Dr. Eggleston's related research project, "Innovation for Healthy Aging" >  

Social and Policy Pressures in a Rapidly Aging Economy

Korea is aging fast, and the prevalence of ADRD among older adults is expected to surge, as is the projected social and economic toll of dementia care. Demographic and economic projections suggest that the annual cost of ADRD in Korea would increase from 0.9 percent to almost four percent of GDP from 2019 to 2050.

“Korea’s demographic transition, like its economic development, has been compressed into just a few generations,” Eggleston and Kim explain. “As a result, its triumph of longevity and current extra-low fertility engender social strains and policy pressures to address the burgeoning needs for long-term services and support – including prevention of ADRD, investing in early detection, and providing appropriate care for people with ADRD, which often involves addressing the broader social issue of financial support for older adults and detecting cognitive decline in those still engaged in the labor force.”

A Foundation for Dementia Care Service Delivery

Korea has taken decisive steps to build a comprehensive system for dementia care, leveraging its national health insurance and long-term care insurance (LTCI). This dual insurance framework aims to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and shift social care away from medical settings.

Research shows that “the adoption of LTCI in 2008 helped to address regional disparities by providing nationwide risk pooling for long-term care services,” but the system still faces hurdles. Within Korea’s private-dominated service delivery system, the public-private balance varies significantly across different services, coordination between healthcare and long-term care services remains fragmented, and there is a need for better integration of community-based support.

Furthermore, “social insurance is no panacea for mitigating disparities and securing financial support for the most vulnerable citizens, such as people with ADRD and their families,” Eggleston and Kim note. Out-of-pocket payments for medical care still constitute a substantial portion of Korean household consumption.

Livelihood and Workforce Challenges

In light of Korea’s limited sources of financial support for its older citizens, the country has relatively high labor force participation, especially among older men. This high level of employment of older Koreans may bode ill in an economy where many of the “senior employment” positions – primarily low-paying roles in the service sector – are not age-friendly.

Giving elderly persons a reason to get up in the morning has its benefits, Eggleston and Kim note, but having them perform service jobs is not a sustainable way to support livelihoods and healthy aging. “How decision-making by cognitively impaired individuals affects health and financial well-being can be considered the defining feature of the economics perspective on ADRD and its social impacts,” the co-authors say.

The growing demand for professional dementia care strains Korea’s caregiving workforce in other ways. Amid the shortage and aging of caregivers, much of dementia care falls on unpaid family members, often women in their 50s, lowering their rates of labor force participation in prime age. The burden on these informal caregivers is profound.

The authors note that “Korea needs more strategies to recruit, retain, and empower a knowledgeable and resilient caregiving workforce.”

Prevention and Early Diagnosis: A Mixed Picture

Early detection is critical for planning care and support for people with ADRD, and Korea is taking steps to design programs and incentives for healthy aging habits and early ADRD detection. These efforts, however, require stronger staffing and funding to offer more personalized and coordinated care.

Another set of challenges stems from the underuse of existing long-term services and support programs and the need to diversify them. Currently, providers have weak incentives to offer palliative care, while families and patients often struggle to choose comfort care over ongoing medical treatments.

Policymakers must also expand the target group of beneficiaries and diversify long-term services and support for daily life, including promoting a reduction in risk factors associated with dementia, such as low educational attainment, smoking, physical inactivity, uncontrolled chronic diseases, and depression. Eggleston and Kim call for developing “additional care service types such as hospital companion and nutrition support services” and integrating new technologies as part of a diversified, long-term aging-in-place care system.

Expanding Care Options 

The demographic transition has been accompanied by shifting social norms regarding responsibilities and caregiving, meaning significantly fewer Koreans believe care for older parents is the sole responsibility of family members. Accordingly, Korean policies aim to strengthen home- and community-based services (HCBS). Yet, the country’s share of at-home care recipients remains lower than in many peer economies.

“Making the vision of quality HCBS a reality involves multiple dimensions of financing and service delivery, tailored to local and individual circumstances while supporting equitable access nationally for those in need,” write Eggleston and Kim.

Institutional care in residential facilities remains a necessity for frail older people with ADRD and multiple comorbidities. While the supply of such service providers has greatly improved and long-term care insurance coverage has enhanced their affordability for families, wide disparities in quality of care for those in residential facilities persist. Meanwhile, hospice and palliative care remain largely an underdeveloped care option for people with ADRD in Korea.

Lessons for Aging Economies

South Korea’s dementia care journey illustrates the complex balancing act of addressing the multiple dimensions of a rapid demographic transition. The country’s efforts to promote healthy aging and diagnose, treat, and care for people with ADRD offer valuable insights for other economies that must prepare to provide long-term support for their aging populations.

One major imperative in Korea and elsewhere is ensuring that dementia care policies and programs are based on robust evidence. “To utilize limited resources most effectively, it will be critical to design and collect policy-relevant evidence about what works for people with ADRD and their care partners,” Eggleston and Kim write.

Demographic shifts worldwide have increased the number of older workers, and many economies are facing a critical question: Are their labor markets ready to support older workers?

Researchers have found that, in the United States, the surge of older workers has gone hand–in-hand with an increase in the number of “age-friendly jobs” – roles with working conditions more suitable for aging employees, such as placing fewer physical demands or offering greater scheduling flexibility. Yet it remains unclear whether comparable trends have taken hold in other aging economies.

A new study, published in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing, helps fill in this gap by examining the evolution of age-friendly jobs in South Korea (hereafter Korea), where the number of workers aged 50 and over increased by 165 percent from 2000 to 2023. Korea is now officially considered a "super-aged" society, and the government is doubling down on its efforts to bolster the workforce.

The study, co-authored by Hyeongsuk Kim and Chulhee Lee, both of Seoul National University, and Stanford health economist Karen Eggleston, the director of APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program, examines Korea’s workforce and economy to determine whether the nation significantly expanded its 50+ workforce by creating job opportunities favorable for older workers or if some other mechanism is at play. 

The co-authors examined the job characteristics experienced by older Koreans relative to their younger counterparts and U.S. older workers. Second, they analyzed data collected in 2020 about Korean workers, evaluating their jobs based on various parameters in the Age-Friendliness Index (AFI), a tool that measures the degree to which jobs are more suitable for older workers. The researchers considered AFI factors such as the requirement for heavy physical activity, the pace of the job, and the possibility of telecommuting. They also examined how the number of age-friendly jobs changed from 2000 to 2020.

• Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' research updates >

• Learn more about Dr. Eggleston's related research project, "Innovation for Healthy Aging" >

  ---

The study finds that, while age-friendly jobs have increased in Korea, the number grew more slowly than in the United States, indicating that the U.S. market responded more quickly to changes in workforce demographics. Furthermore, the study indicates that older Koreans were not the main beneficiaries of age-friendly jobs. Instead, women and college-educated workers benefited more from these jobs, while non-college-educated men have seen fewer gains. “These results highlight the uneven adaptation of Korea’s labor market to demographic change and suggest that social norms and labor market frictions shape age-friendly job creation and who benefits from those jobs,” the researchers write.

The study also unveils that, in Korea, the working conditions of employees aged 50–61 differ significantly from those aged 62 or older. Despite the nation's high employment rates for those aged 65 and older, the researchers discovered that a third of working Koreans over the age of 62 held jobs requiring heavy physical activity and earned lower wages. Additionally, only a little over one-fifth of them had jobs that allowed for “mostly sitting.”

Labor Market Frictions

The study’s authors propose several explanations for why Korea’s economy, despite a significant increase in older workers, has not adapted as quickly as the United States in placing these workers in age-friendly occupations. One reason is Korea's comparatively low level of pension support, which forces workers to fill a disproportionate number of low-skilled, temporary, and day jobs. It may be that many older workers are forced to work, regardless of whether the jobs are friendly to their needs. Another reason may be the rigidities of the labor market, including strong protections against employees being laid off. Such protections are beneficial for workers, but they restrict companies' ability to restructure their workforce. Moreover, the role of chaebol, or large corporations, may also be significant. Although chaebol are producing and selling more, they have also increased automation and resorted to outsourcing instead of hiring additional workers.

Older workers in Korea are also facing competition from women for age-friendly jobs. The researchers noted significant gender-related changes in the country's education and employment levels. In 2009, the percentage of women enrolling in college surpassed that of men, and the percentage of women in the workforce increased by 2.5% from 2000 to 2023. Korean women are likely to have an even stronger preference for the flexibility of age-friendly jobs than American women because of gendered responsibilities for household production.

The study’s results, researchers said, reinforce key findings from previous studies: "that 'age-friendly' jobs appeal to many kinds of workers, not just older adults; and that labor market frictions shape who benefits from age-friendly jobs."

As governments grapple with rising life expectancies and shrinking traditional working-age populations, ensuring that older adults can continue working safely and with dignity is key to sustaining economic growth and social stability. According to the study, South Korea has made impressive strides in keeping older people in the workforce, but the next challenge is ensuring work itself evolves to meet their needs.

How do aging populations reshape health and innovation policies in Asian economies? What role can the private sector play in public health service delivery, and how do individual preferences affect the development of emerging technologies? Mai Nguyen and Jinseok Kim, the 2024-25 Asia health policy postdoctoral fellows at APARC, focus on these questions as part of their research into health care service adaptation and behavioral economics.

At a recent joint seminar, “Health, Aging, Innovation, and the Private Sector: Evidence from Vietnam and Korea,” they offered a comparative look at how Vietnam and South Korea navigate aging populations, rising healthcare demands, and rapid technological change. While Nguyen focuses on health system design in Vietnam and Kim explores innovation diffusion in Korea, they both use discrete choice modeling to understand how individuals make decisions within systems influenced by age, infrastructure, and policy.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates from our scholars >

Nguyen and Kim’s work is supported by APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP), which offers a postdoctoral fellowship each year to an early-career scholar conducting original research on health policy in the Asia-Pacific, particularly in low- and middle-income economies across the region. The fellowship demonstrates the program’s commitment to fostering the next generation of Asia-focused health policy researchers.

Vietnam’s Mixed Health System and the Role of Patient Choice

Mai Nguyen’s research centers around the role of private healthcare providers in Vietnam, especially for patients managing chronic diseases such as diabetes. She studies how patients choose between public and private healthcare providers, and what attributes of care they value most.

To analyze these preferences, she uses a method known as the Discrete Choice Experiment, which allows her to quantify the relative importance of various service attributes — such as appointment flexibility, doctor choice, quality of care, drug diversity, and cost coverage — in influencing patients’ decisions.

Nguyen’s interest in this topic began while she worked at Vietnam’s Ministry of Health. “That earlier work highlighted the growing contribution of the private sector in filling service delivery gaps, particularly in urban areas and for non-communicable diseases such as diabetes,” she says.

Her findings suggest that Vietnam’s private sector has become a necessary complement to public healthcare. “Despite potential downsides, such as increased costs, equity concerns, and profit-driven service delivery, my study finds that private healthcare helps relieve pressure on the public system and meets diverse patient needs.”

At APARC, Nguyen has sharpened the focus of her research under the mentorship of AHPP Director Dr. Karen Eggleston, a leading expert on public and private roles in Asian health systems. Nguyen also values her collaboration with Jinseok Kim. “Dr. Kim’s expertise provides valuable insights into how Korea is addressing the challenges of a rapidly aging population through innovative policy and service delivery models,” she notes.

Her time at Stanford has also broadened Nguyen’s horizons beyond traditional health economics. “I have developed a strong interest in the application of artificial intelligence to enhance the delivery of medical services,” she says. Looking forward, she plans to expand her research to Asian American populations in the United States, exploring how AI and digital health can improve diabetes care while also addressing barriers related to equity and access.

Innovation Adoption and the Aging Consumer in South Korea

Jinseok Kim investigates how aging affects new technology adoption and consumer behavior in South Korea, a country facing one of the fastest demographic shifts in the world.

“My current research involves looking at population aging and innovation diffusion, specifically in the context of the rapid aging trend in Korea,” Kim says. He studies how age influences consumer preferences in choosing new technologies such as electric vehicles, telemedicine, and generative AI platforms like ChatGPT.

Understanding these preferences, Kim argues, is critical for both policy and market strategy. “By working out the relationship between consumer choice and population aging, I forecast the effect of the population aging trend on the diffusion of innovative products and provide the potential policy and marketing implications for government policy and corporate management.”

The challenge, he says, lies in making sense of a wide range of behaviors across age groups and product types. “The biggest challenge I had in my studies was finding the overarching trend in the relationship between consumer choice for particular innovative products and population aging and then translating this finding into meaningful implications for society and the economy.”

Kim credits his time at APARC, especially participating in the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL) meetings, with broadening his perspective. “Working as a member of SNAPL gave me insights and perspectives I didn’t have before,” he says.

SNAPL, directed by Professor Gi-Wook Shin, is an interdisciplinary research initiative housed within APARC addressing pressing social, cultural, economic, and political challenges in Asia through comparative, policy-relevant studies. The lab cultivates the next generation of researchers and policy leaders by offering mentorships and fellowship opportunities for students and emerging scholars.

Kim sees APARC’s model as effectively bridging academia and policy. “There are so many opportunities to interact with other scholars, policymakers, and practitioners,” Kim says. “Scholars here not only research and write, but they also get to share their voice and research findings in real-world policy.”

His advice to early-career researchers is straightforward. “Be more down-to-earth with your studies and thinking,” Kim says. “Sometimes scholars tend to get caught up in their way of thinking and perspective, but it may not be practical in real life. That is why I think it is important to just get outside and observe real consumer choice and behavior.”

Kim plans to continue researching questions related to innovation and demographic change to help governments and businesses adapt to aging populations and shifting consumer needs.

Ground-Level Data, Big-Picture Impact

Mai Nguyen and Jinseok Kim approach shared societal challenges through distinct yet complementary lenses. Nguyen’s research reveals how patient preferences can guide more effective public-private collaboration in healthcare, ultimately shaping systems that are more responsive to real-world needs. Meanwhile, Kim examines how patterns of technology adoption — especially among older adults — can influence the trajectory of innovation in aging societies.

Both scholars emphasize the value of ground-level data in addressing large-scale issues. By centering real behaviors and preferences, their work helps inform smarter, more adaptive policy, whether in designing patient-centered care or planning for technology's role in future societies. At APARC, their research bridges theory and practice, offering fresh insight into how Asian countries can navigate the twin forces of demographic change and rapid innovation.

This interview first appeared in the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paolo, on April 6. The following English version was generated using machine translation and subsequently edited for accuracy and clarity.

WASHINGTON — The tariff hike against all countries announced last week by President Donald Trump may bolster China's image, but that doesn't mean China or any other country is poised to replace the United States, says Thomas Fingar, Shorenstein APARC Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University.

Fingar, a former chief of the State Department's China Division, among other roles in the U.S. Foreign Service and national intelligence, believes that Trump's tariffs will be bad for all nations.

"I hesitate to predict how other countries will react, except that this has more or less given everyone an incentive to bypass the U.S.," he tells Folha.

Donald Trump announced tariffs this week against virtually every country. China has already announced retaliation, imposing a 34% tariff on American products. Are we facing a trade war?

I don't think the war metaphor works for me. I don't know what Trump is trying to do. One could say that this is a game of imposing an outrageous tariff in the hope that specific targets, which are basically all countries, might give in to what they say are their demands. In doing so, they would reduce barriers to trade with the United States. To me, it doesn't make sense with the vast majority of targets of the 10% tariffs.

Why?

I hesitate to predict how other countries will react, except that this has more or less given everyone an incentive to bypass the U.S., to make the U.S. a supplier of last resort, to hold the line, to have a kind of united front to compete with each other.

If the assessment is that the Dutch or the French or the Germans or the Brazilians or somebody else is talking about doing something to eliminate a 10% tariff to gain a comparative advantage in accessing the U.S. market, if that's the logic, then fine. Maybe there's something rational about that, but I think it's more likely that the targets of those low tariffs are just getting together.

My main trade competitor has the same or higher tariffs levied against them. Why should I give in if we are competing on a level playing field?

I think Trump is going to make the U.S. pay a huge geopolitical price. But what he thinks he will gain from this, I don't know. Is it likely that he will achieve anything really significant from it? I doubt it.

You mentioned a geopolitical price tag for the United States. What would it be?

The tendency of much of the world, most of the time, was to try to work with the United States, to the extent that they couldn't automatically do what Washington wanted, but they were inclined to cooperate because they saw it as benign, if not beneficial, to their interests. I think Trump has reversed that. This is going to lead to a disinclination to work with us, an incentive to try to bypass us. I think the inclination now is going to be: I'm not going to vote with the Americans, I'm going to look elsewhere first, for my investment, for my capital, for the market, for what I'm doing, for partners.

But I don't think that these measures are necessarily going to play in favor of any particular country. Maybe China in some places, the European Union in some places, Japan in some places. It's going to be a very different environment for the United States, for American companies and diplomats to operate in. It's going to be much more difficult.

This tariff strategy that you say is hard to understand is seen by some analysts as part of Trump's isolationist policy.

As my kids would say, this is so last century. This is really 19th century, the idea of bringing industries, manufacturing back to the United States. Very little manufacturing, I think, is going to come back to the United States. We have 4% unemployment. We can't fill the jobs that we have now, imagine bringing back manufacturing of basic commodities like shoes, toys, that kind of thing.

That left the United States a long time ago and went to Japan, moved from Japan to Taiwan, moved from Taiwan to South Korea, moved from South Korea to somewhere else, and then moved to China and then to Vietnam. Those things are not coming back here because there's not enough profitability to justify investing in robots and mechanizing those things to bring them back to the United States. Our workforce is small relative to the size of the economy. It's not coming back.

It's already moving from China because labor costs are so high. The fallacy in Trump's logic is that things like furniture, construction, textiles, clothing, and manufacturing would come back. And the people who would actually do the work are the people he's persecuting with his ridiculous immigration policies.

Trump has argued that he imposed the tariffs to curb alleged abuses against the United States that would benefit China. Is he containing Beijing with this move?

I don't think he really cares about containing China. But the answer is no. These moves boost China's image. Beijing has seized on the rhetoric of defending the open, globalized international trading order that the United States has attacked. They will take advantage of that as much as they can. I don't think the tariffs are part of the U.S. rivalry with China. China's rise has not disadvantaged the United States economically — it has done so to Japan, and, to some extent, South Korea and Taiwan, but not the United States. So Trump is using this argument with false, exaggerated, and distorted statements.

Could we witness a change in the world order, the end of the American era and the beginning of a Chinese era?

No.

Not even as a consequence of tariffs?

Absolutely not. Part of the problem is that China's economy is closed. One of the reasons is that it doesn't have a consumer society because people don't have enough income. That's because of the amount of wealth that the state extracts to pay for high-speed rail, military structures, and energy development. Some of that is good, some of it is excess.

U.S. tariffs won’t create a market that can rival the size and influence of the United States. It would have to be somewhere else that is very rich, and China is not very rich. China is barely in the middle-income category, it has a per capita income at a level that Mexico has been at for decades. It's not binary. So, the U.S. retreat from its leadership position in the world order, which I don't necessarily see as a bad thing, doesn't automatically hand that role over to China, Russia, the European Union, Japan, Brazil, the BRICS, or any other set of players.

Can China gain ground by investing more in countries that are affected by tariffs?

China has invested more in countries that are affected by tariffs, like Indonesia and Vietnam. These countries are very wary of Chinese investment for various historical reasons, and to some extent for ethnic reasons. But China is actually cutting back on its overseas investments because its own population is asking: Why are we giving money to countries that are richer than us? That is a reasonable question.

They have real problems meeting the expectations, demands, and needs of their own population, which is now largely urban. The cities have to function, you can't say, "Go back to the farm and do sustainable agriculture." That phase is long gone in China. So they have to spend more. Half of the population still has rural identity cards. That means they don't get free education beyond primary school. That means 50% of the future workforce won't have more than a primary school education. This is a country with enormous challenges. Can they manage them? Probably yes, but there is not much room for maneuver. Their own slowing economy will be hurt by these tariffs. I don't think that's Trump's intention, but it will hurt them.

What impact might the tariffs have on Brazil and Latin America? Do you think China will become more attractive?

I don't know specific commodities from specific places, but my general starting point is that a 10% distribution across Latin America won't have much of an impact on the price for consumers in those countries. You'll export the same amount; we'll pay more for whatever the commodity is, flowers from Colombia, grapes, wine from Argentina or Chile. Since the tariff is general, it doesn't give Chile an advantage on wine over Argentina, because they both have the same amount. Most of what Latin America exports to the United States doesn't go to China.

In short, what are the main consequences of tariffs in terms of the geopolitical landscape and the domestic landscape?

It destabilizes the international trading system that has benefited most countries for a long time. It will force adjustments, that is number one. And number two is that it undermines the image of the United States, and therefore its influence as a stabilizing, predictable, and broadly beneficial member of the international community. It disrupts economies and undermines American influence and attractiveness.

In the end, does anyone benefit from Trump's tariff policies?

No one. This is not a policy that works to anyone's obvious benefit. It upsets everyone. And there is no alternative to the United States, in the sense that the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. China is not that, and China does not want to be that.

This interview first appeared in The Paper on April 4, 2025. The following English version was generated using machine translation and subsequently edited for accuracy and clarity.

It has been 122 days since South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol issued an "emergency martial law" order on December 3, 2024. On the morning of April 4, the Constitutional Court of Korea will issue a ruling on Yoon’s impeachment case. From the National Assembly’s motion to impeach to 11 court hearings and now the final verdict, 111 days have passed—far more than for former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye. Over these four months, the divide between the ruling and opposition parties — and within Korean society — has become increasingly apparent. Whether the Constitutional Court can safeguard the Constitution and public trust has become a major focus of public opinion in South Korea.

"I’ve long believed in the resilience of South Korean democracy, but over the past two or three months, I’ve started to worry. In the face of this current political stalemate, I wonder whether Koreans can still accept decisions that contradict their positions," said Gi-Wook Shin, Professor of Sociology at Stanford University, founding director of the Korea Program, and Director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, in an interview with The Paper. He noted that there are no signs South Korea will escape its current political polarization anytime soon — and that the situation may worsen.

Shin entered Yonsei University’s Sociology Department in the late 1970s. In the early 2000s, he founded the Korea Program at Stanford, focusing on social movements and nationalism. In 2024, he published Korea’s Democracy in Crisis: The Threats of Liberalism, Populism, and Polarization, a book whose concerns — resurgent populism and societal polarization — are now vividly reflected in real life.

On December 3, 2024, Yoon declared a state of emergency and described his political opponents as "anti-state forces." The language he used in his televised emergency address was directly reminiscent of the Cold War era. Meanwhile, during Yoon’s administration, opposition parties submitted a record 29 motions for impeachment. These episodes highlight deep rifts in Korean politics, intensifying the fierce struggle between the left and right across all levels of society.

The roots of South Korea’s political divide trace back to the post-WWII era. Under global pressures, political elites on the Korean peninsula quickly split into left-wing, right-wing, and various centrist groups, each hoping to build the country according to their ideals. After the United States and Soviet Union occupied different parts of the peninsula, a sharp ideological confrontation emerged, and the left and right failed to unite to establish a single nation.

During the military rule in South Korea, U.S.-backed authoritarian strongmen governed the country, laying the groundwork for today’s conservative political parties. Meanwhile, leftist forces were strengthened by decades of street protests. Since democratization in 1987, South Korean politics have swung between the left and the right. Under President Yoon, this shift toward the right has become even more pronounced.

Amid the growing hostility between conservatives and progressives, Yoon’s martial law declaration and subsequent impeachment proceedings have amplified South Korea’s political polarization and left-right conflict. Yoon’s supporters have launched massive demonstrations. Conservative voices have grown louder, with many chanting U.S.-style slogans like “Stop the Steal” in homage to Trump’s MAGA movement. Shin warns that among Asian countries, South Korea may be the only one to experience a phenomenon akin to “Trumpism.” A recent survey by Korea’s Center for Conflict Resolution found that most South Koreans see ideological division as the country’s most pressing social issue.

Conservative Voices Grow Louder, More Extreme

The Paper: From your observations, what changes has this political storm — from emergency martial law to the president’s impeachment — brought to South Korean society?

Gi-Wook Shin: Regarding presidential impeachment, Roh Moo-hyun’s case in 2004 was dismissed by the Constitutional Court, and Park Geun-hye was removed from office in 2017. Both previous cases strictly followed legal procedures with clear rules. But this time, the situation is far more chaotic, with fiercer partisan conflict. In a sense, we’re witnessing a threat to the rule of law.

On the other hand, mass mobilization by both the left and the right is very active, especially the anti-impeachment forces, whose scale and influence are significant. This shows that political polarization has deepened, and social division has worsened — developments that deeply concern me.

The Paper: In this wave of political turmoil, what is the core conflict between conservatives and progressives?

Shin: When martial law was declared, the right tried to assert control over state power and justified their actions with claims that pro-North Korean forces needed to be purged from the country. Their stance clearly supports the South Korea-U.S. alliance. In their protests, you’ll often see both Korean and American flags, as well as images of Trump and Yoon Suk-yeol side by side.

The left, by contrast, believes that this emergency declaration is essentially destroying the democracy that South Koreans fought so hard to achieve. They see the right not just as opponents, but as anti-state and anti-people forces.

Today’s political confrontation in South Korea is filled with resentment and hostility. It has become a kind of “identity politics.” That’s why compromise is so difficult. The two sides no longer see each other as legitimate political rivals, but as “evil forces” or enemies to be defeated at all costs.

The Paper: It’s been over three months since the martial law controversy began. As time passes, conservative voices have grown louder, the ruling People Power Party's approval ratings have rebounded, and anti-impeachment rallies are massive. Are we seeing signs of an expanding conservative base?

Shin: Large-scale protests aren’t new in South Korea. In the past, they were usually led by liberal or progressive groups. In recent years, however, right-wing and conservative forces have increasingly mobilized for protests. This is a new trend. You could already see this during the 2022 presidential election: it was extremely close, with Yoon and Lee Jae-myung separated by less than 1 percent of the vote. Conservatives realized the importance of mobilizing public support to counterbalance the left.

Indeed, conservative voices have grown louder and more extreme. We’re even seeing cases of storming courts and self-immolation. But that doesn’t necessarily mean their numbers are increasing. Overall, South Korea’s population is roughly divided into 30 percent liberals, 30 percent conservatives, and about 40 percent swing voters. Sometimes conservatives use “bluffing” to create the impression of overwhelming influence and suppress progressive mobilization.

The Paper: The far right is now active on the political frontlines, loudly supporting the conservative camp. Some far-right individuals even stormed the court. Right-wing YouTubers have become among Yoon’s most fervent defenders. In this context, will the People Power Party continue shifting further right, or even toward the far right?

Shin: What’s visible now is that the ruling People Power Party has some connection to the far-right forces in the current street protests. Especially in the wake of the martial law declaration and impeachment, the far right has taken the lead in organizing massive demonstrations, mobilizing hundreds of thousands every weekend.

There is latent cooperation between the ruling party and the far right. But now that the impeachment has triggered an early presidential election, the People Power Party must also appeal to a broader base, which means distancing itself from the far right — creating a dilemma.

If the People Power Party continues working with the far right, it may retain its base and ensure right-wing support. But elections are won by swing voters. Distancing from the far right helps avoid being labeled “extreme” and attracts moderates.

Given that the election will happen within 60 days of the impeachment, the ruling party has little time to adjust its campaign strategy. They must quickly decide how to handle their relationship with far-right street forces: should they continue cooperating or distance themselves? This will be a core political challenge in the coming weeks.

South Korea’s Democratic Crisis Reflects a Global Trend

The Paper: At conservative protests, many people carry signs with slogans like “Stop the Steal,” borrowed from Trump supporters. Trump had the “Make America Great Again” movement. Yoon has the Taegeukgi Budae movement (a far-right group of older conservatives, many of them fundamentalist Christians who strongly support Yoon). How do you see Trump’s influence on Korean politics?

Shin: It’s interesting. Among Asian countries, South Korea may be the only one to experience something like “Trumpism.” Two factors are worth noting.

First, there are organizational similarities between the Korean and American contexts. Yoon and Trump supporters share common traits, especially religious ones. That’s not the case in other Asian countries. For example, the Philippines is Catholic, others are predominantly Muslim or Buddhist. South Korea is the only Asian country where fundamentalist Christians have strong political influence. (Editor’s note: According to Yonhap, Korea’s Yoido Full Gospel Church is currently the largest Christian church in the world.) There seems to be a connection or sense of identification between American evangelicals and Korean Christian fundamentalists.

Second, ideologically, Korea’s right resembles America’s right. Their fondness for slogans like “Stop the Steal” reflects their belief in election fraud conspiracies. YouTube’s influence in Korea is possibly stronger than in most of the world, especially among the far right. It has become a vital tool for mobilization and organizing large-scale protests.

The Paper: South Korea’s democratization was closely tied to the U.S. export of democracy. After the Korean War, with U.S. support, South Korea adopted a democratic constitution and a relatively modern political framework. How has foreign influence shaped Korean democracy? Is it connected to the current democratic crisis?

Shin: U.S. influence on Korean democracy is complex. Until the 1980s, the United States supported South Korea’s military dictators like Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. Only after 1987 did the United States back democratic development. But ultimately, it was the Korean people who fought for democracy. That’s why so many opposed the martial law declaration on December 3. They don’t want to give up hard-won freedoms. Many made great sacrifices for democracy.

South Korea has been democratic for over 40 years. What we see today may be tense or even extreme, but many places worldwide are also experiencing democratic backsliding. It’s unclear whether the United States is doing any better, especially in the Trump era. Many European countries — France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain — are facing similar crises.

South Korea’s current democratic crisis is part of a global trend. It’s just that the martial law announcement drew special attention. But populism, polarization, and identity politics are global issues.

The Paper: After democratization, South Korea again saw emergency martial law, fierce clashes between the president and law enforcement, and general chaos. Yet parliament quickly revoked the martial law order, the impeachment process followed legal procedure, and there were no bloodshed or full societal collapse. What has maintained this relative order?

Shin: South Korea has experienced many legal and political crises before. Also, civic engagement is very high: many LGBTQ+ and minority groups are highly politically active, perhaps even more than in the United States. That’s part of why political clashes are so intense, but it also shows a deep sense of civic participation.

Korea is a relatively well-governed country, with a strong bureaucratic system. I used to believe strongly in the resilience of Korean democracy, but over the past two or three months, I’ve started to worry. Can people still accept outcomes that contradict their positions?

In 2017, the Constitutional Court upheld Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, and most Koreans accepted it and moved on. But this time, it’s unclear whether Yoon’s supporters will accept a guilty verdict — they’re already challenging the court’s legitimacy. On the other hand, if the impeachment fails, opponents may also refuse to accept the result.

The political turbulence may persist for months, or even years.

How to Heal a Divided Society

The Paper: Beyond left-right ideology, what other messages are South Korean protesters trying to express? Also, Korean pop culture has entered these events: people are playing K-pop music and waving glowsticks. How do you see this unique cultural phenomenon?

Shin: Today, there are many legal disputes and procedural questions between the Constitutional Court, regular courts, the Corruption Investigation Office, prosecutors, and police. Sometimes the legal process is inconsistent or fragmented, which confuses the public and weakens faith in the legal system.

But Koreans have a long history of protest culture. They know how to demonstrate in an orderly way. Protests aren’t always serious or violent, sometimes they feel festive or recreational, with music, dancing, and food stalls. Some elderly people even travel from rural areas to Seoul for a day just to enjoy the atmosphere and social gathering.

Also, Korea is a highly centralized society — everything is concentrated in Seoul, and issues can quickly become national news.

The Paper: This political crisis has deepened Korea’s ideological rifts. A recent survey shows that ideological conflict is now seen as the most urgent social problem, even ahead of gender or wealth inequality. What can be done to prevent further division or begin healing?

Shin: There are no signs that Korea will overcome its political confrontation and polarization anytime soon. The divide may worsen. In the long term, I call for political reform.

Korea should adopt a parliamentary system. The current presidential system is “winner-takes-all,” so even if someone wins by less than 1 percent of the vote, they gain total control. A parliamentary system might encourage more cooperation and compromise. But I don’t think Korea currently has the political atmosphere to make that shift.

The electoral system also needs reform. Right now, each district elects just one representative — sometimes by a single vote — giving them total power.

Civic education is another area for reform. Koreans need to learn how to share and compromise. In Korean, “compromise” often carries a negative connotation. But in a democracy, compromise is essential. No one can get everything they want.

These are long-term reforms and there’s a long road ahead. What truly worries me is that in the next year or two, social division may grow even worse.