Browse by title

In order to contextualize Korean employment and industrial relations (EIR) in the field of EIR thought, a field largely dominated by Western ideas and experience, this chapter breaks down Korean EIR into its component parts using two particular frameworks: a union/labor management model and an employment relationship model. This structured approach brings to the fore often overlooked facts regarding Korean institutions, collective actors, socio-economic and political forces that have shaped its employment relations and industrial environment – namely, the preponderance of small to medium-sized enterprises, the highly politicized evolution of unions and employer associations and their connection to the besieged and suffering ‘haan’ mentality, the movement away from Confucian-system paternal relations and the preference for strong, centralized leadership. The chapter highlights key events that have driven a narrow labor/management bias in Korean EIR, especially the Great Labor Offensive, and examines the whole through Kaufman’s employment relations model.

Using a select set of literature, this chapter reviews the progress in the line of research focusing on nonprofit income diversity and issues of financial health. General consensus exists on the diversity of revenue dependence across nonprofit fields, revealing heavy dependence on commercial revenue by some, on private contributions by others and diversified sources by others. We also address recent developments in theory building and testing that help explain these patterns. Although the literature on revenue diversification reveal mixed results, the general pattern shows a positive association between diversification and financial stability. However, close attention to the composition of an income portfolio is needed. Conversely, revenue concentration is generally associated with financial growth, albeit tempered by an increasing recognition of the limits of persistently concentrated revenue portfolios. We conclude by addressing the merits and gaps in current research, including the quality of current data, its access, scope and specificity.