8 ms·

When Korea imposed a limit on working hours, did it make people happier?

85 points by spindritf 12y ago

Sumaso 12y ago
Reading the abstract from the actual paper itself seems to indicate that people were not more or less satisfied with their jobs after the reduction of working hours. "While satisfaction with working hours increased, reductions had no impact on job and life satisfaction." It seems people did actually like the reduced number of hours, they didn't say that they liked their job more, or found more satisfaction in their life. I feel like for most people a job is something you do to fund the things you really want to do. I would love to see what worker satisfaction would be if their income was fixed, but they could choose whichever job they wanted. (aka. you'll always get paid the same amount of money regardless of what job you do).
- leaveyou 12y ago
  Interesting spin of the facts indeed. I wonder who paid Rudolph to make this study.. I suspect it wasn't the workers :D
  - dbecker 12y ago
    It's very rare for anyone to commission studies like this in the social sciences. Rudolph is a professor at Korea University, and professors do research without extra compensation because it is part of how they get tenure.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ekidd 12y ago
  This sounds like it might relate to the "hedonic treadmill": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill in their 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group and as predicted, comparison (with past experiences and current communities) and habituation (to new circumstances) affected levels of happiness such that after the initial impact of the extremely positive or negative events, happiness levels typically went back to the average levels. If things like winning the lottery or losing a limb tend to have short-term effects on happiness, then it's not surprising that a ~10% change in working hours has little effect. Especially if—as another poster mentioned—you just end up taking the work home.
  - dmix 12y ago
    Wow, I wonder what effect this has on politics? It was noted that the Arab Spring was largely not the result of political discontent but the fact food prices were becoming very high [0]. It might be the case that unless the basic livelihood of people is consistently threatened - such as not being able to eat - that they will always put up with the political status quo. As we're seeing now with the non-existent political reaction to mass surveillance. [0] http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Somebody said something about never being more than three meals away from revolution? Makes sense.
    - akirarei 12y ago
      For a revolution you need a revolutionary situation in a society, Lenin described two conditions "The bottoms don't want and the tops cannot live in the old way". It is often connected to food or another word necessity's. That was the case during the "arab spring" and was also the case in 1917 Russia, the main slogan for the Russian revolution being "bread and peace". The Russian people had nothing left to lose and the ruling class had nothing left to give(to sustain their power) thus fulfilling the two conditions. All you need then is a catalyst. Which in the case of the "arab spring" was when Mohamed Bouazizi set him self on fire. When it concerns America and mass-surveillance I would see that as a possible catalyst that lacked a revolutionary situation.
  - RAB1138 12y ago
    I don't think we should have expected the temporary news of decreased hours to account for greater happiness, but rather that people filled their newly free time with pursuits that made them happy.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    Of course a significant contributory factor behind the "hedonic treadmill" is that subjective indications of happiness as survey responses are essentially a proxy for the person's actual emotional state (which of course is largely unmeasurable mental activity). That is of course assuming that happiness actually is a tendency towards certain mental states. People's recollection of how they actually felt during a prior time period is imperfect, and subjective expectations for their maximum possible level of mental satisfaction are subject to revision. Its possible for survey participants to sincerely believe their overall satisfaction is still six out of ten on some crude scale whilst every single measurable or unmeasurable aspect of their mental well being has actually moved in the right direction (fewer anxiety symptoms, higher dopamine levels, less brain activity devoted to sources of irritation, higher confidence etc.) Of course its also quite possible for participants to forget prior survey responses resulting in participants assigning same cardinal score to their happiness when surveyed in two different time periods, yet being able to unequivocally agree that their happiness (or indeed satisfaction with work) is a fair bit higher in period B than period A.
qwerta 12y ago
I can speek for Greece, where is ban on sunday work. For workers it just means they have to work unpaid (and undeclared) overtimes. If you wont to make people happy, just introduce double pay for overtimes and really enforce it!
- muyuu 12y ago
  If you cannot "really enforce" one policy why do you think you will be able to "really enforce" the other? When enforcement doesn't work rules are guidelines.
  - xico 12y ago
    And while you are at wishful thinking, one could also ban the whole “undeclared” Greek system such as how you have to give cash to your MD to get proper treatment, how you declare half the value of a house when you sell and buy it, or how you have to pay extra to get receipts (to attach them to your tax return, well hand-washing done corrupted governments!).
  - qwerta 12y ago
    Some rules "enforce themselfs". Unpaid overtime brings positive motivation for emplyers to broken. Paid overtime is negative motivations, and people are more likely to report it and sue due to lost money.
    - muyuu 12y ago
      And they don't sue for the free hours worked on Sunday because...? As I said, you start by creating a culture where rules are enforced, then work from there.
      - qwerta 12y ago
        Nice one :-) Sunday is free because it is 'overtime'. Workers are paid fixed pay per month. Suing for Sunday would not bring any extra money to worker.
- 12y ago
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
Before you draw any firm conclusions, be sure to read the details in the last couple of paragraphs: The subjects' hours were only reduced by about 10%, an average of five hours a week; many of them were still working 40-50 hours; and many of them were still expected to get the same amount of work done, forcing them to take work home with them. The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough.
- virmundi 12y ago
  My question is can the government actually regulate this kind of thing? As our Greek friend above said, people worked off the books. One might argue that a rational response to the issue is the works to unite against the tyranny. My rebut is that if you're poor, living paycheck to paycheck, you can't unionize because you'll be out of work and starving.
- jerf 12y ago
  "The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough." That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect." That's undisprovable. It's possible that doing the thing that produced no results even harder could have some positive effect, but the world is probably even more full of things that produced no results but if pushed harder will have negative effects. Part of being a real scientist is acknowledging that this can only be interpreted as evidence against the idea that forcing shorter work hours will make people happier, no matter how cognitively or emotionally challenging it is. That's being a scientist. (To forstall the two obvious replies: Consider the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof". And once again, let me underline the scientific dangers in "We tested for X->Y and found no evidence for it, but we're still going to assert that X->Y." This logic doesn't just apply to "work hour reduction", it applies to all null results, of all kinds.)
  - Goronmon 12y ago
    >That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect." Is it scary? I mean, if I go from getting no exercise to spending 30 seconds a day exercising, but see no change in my weight, should I therefore conclude that exercising is pointless? Or should I try exercising more and also maybe be more careful with my eating habits? I think the scary thing is when people try to take complicated subjects and distill them down to shallow talking points.
joshdance 12y ago
TLDR - No it didn't, they don't know why, it may have improved well-being.
- crpatino 12y ago
  It's not as if they do not have a clue why... "Why might this be? Rudolf points out previous evidence that in the short term, capping hours often just means employees have to get the same work done in a shorter time, which is likely to be stress-inducing."
s3nnyy 12y ago
Happiness-wise South Korea ranks 41. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report). Here in Switzerland (3rd in happiness) it is not unusual that people are employed only 3-4 days / week and still make enough money to live well. I don't know of any other country where this is commonplace. (Full disclosure: If you're from the EU and looking for a tech-job over here, I'd be happy to help out).
- mathattack 12y ago
  I think working hours is just a symptom. Look at the funnel... Korean kids spend an ungodly amount of time in class and doing test prep. Putting a cosmetic limit to the amount of hours worked doesn't change society on it's own.
  - s3nnyy 12y ago
    Yet, South Korea ranks high for a First-World-Country in "increase in happiness". If one sorts "World Happiness Report" according to "change in happiness 2005-2007", the top countries are mostly from the second- or third-world with the exception of South Korea.
    - aetherson 12y ago
      I think that the parsimonious explanation for that is that Korea's wealth per capita has exploded in the late 20th and early 21st Century.
- ttty 12y ago
  Check out my blog, what jobs do you have? :) http://webdesignporto.com/ http://webdesignporto.com/
- dirktheman 12y ago
  Same here at the number 4 on the list... I work 4 days a week, my wife works 3. My employer also works 4. My day off is awesome, and accounts for a lot of my happiness. And the happiness of my kids, I'm sure! US may be the leading in economy, but we (Northern and Western Europe) are way ahead of you guys when it comes to a healthy work-life balance...
seanstickle 12y ago
I favor something more like a Results-Only Work Environment (http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe-standards http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe-standards), where the focus is on the results and not on how many hours are worked. Too many companies (even startups) are conservatives and traditionalists in the sense of thinking that work needs to be done within certain hours and at a certain place, even when those are not drivers of the results. I'm hired to deliver certain results, not to work a number of hours. If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. And there's no reason to be in an office, unless the office is instrumental to achieving those results. The focus on how many hours people should work is a fetish that reinforces a still-dominant 20th century office culture.
- grecy 12y ago
  I agree with you personally, but to play the devil's advocate a little: >If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. If you are able to consistently deliver the required results in only 10 hours of "work", it's clear that any organization will slowly ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week. How would you agree on results that are "enough for the company" that won't grow endlessly when they see you're only working 10 hours a week?
  - seanstickle 12y ago
    This is a cultural change that the company has to go through. They're paying me for the results. Not for the hours. Thinking that they'll "ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week" means that you're still thinking that you're paying for hours. Still, it's the responsibility of all employees to improve the process that they work in, just as part of the company's continuous improvement. Which means that more/better results will be delivered over time anyways. How do you agree on results that are "enough for the company" when you hire a consultant (assuming they're an intelligent consultant and don't charge by the hour).
yongjik 12y ago
"Imposed" should be in gigantic scare quotes. Many Korean businesses, big and small, routinely make employees work overtime without payment. Maybe we should ask the question after we do have an enforced limit.
- OSButler 12y ago
  The stories I've heard from friends & family working and living in Korea reflect exactly that. There's not just uncompensated overtime, but you're also expected to join up when it comes to company retreats. So, not only do you give away 10+ hours every day to the company, but then you'll also be incorporated over the weekend, due to some company outing. I also doubt that any imposed limit would actually be enforced or tolerated by the employer. The unpaid hours go directly into the prices, so some businesses wouldn't be able to compete anymore if they suddenly had to pay for that overtime. The passion my friends put into their work is admirable and nothing short of impressive, but I can't help but notice that there's not much time left for family, or anything else besides work for that matter.
hawkice 12y ago
I think a helpful lens is to generally worry about what you are funging against. Time, as a fungible resource, can be allocated to work (generally done in fixed portions), and the remainder to other activities. In America (I have no knowledge specific to Korea), a large percentage of those other activities is "watch television". People self-assess as less happy watching television than they do while working. So giving out more time may increase access to things that make people happy (spending time with loved ones) but also increase time spent on things that make them unhappy. Obviously this is only part of the story, but looking at replacement activities would be a great next step.
dba7dba 12y ago
S Korea just a generation ago was a developing world, with a harsh dictator. Two generations ago, it was really at the rock bottom nation on the globe in terms of any ranking you can think of (poverty/violence/dictatorship/low-education/etc). Pick any poor nation in Asia/Africa and it was probably doing better than S Korea. Remember these: History of Korean War, there's no much natural resource to sell off, with 3 powerful nations (who all have either invaded Korea in the past and view it as a potential target) nearby, with N Korea 30 miles from Seoul, AND (get this) no escape route over land in case of a military conflict (S Korea is pretty much an island now and you canNOT walk/drive to flee S Korea), they better really really get their house in order to survive. Younger S Korean sociologists/commentators lament about how the intense competition is driving people to commit suicides (yes tragic) but they forget many, many more people died/suffered from poverty/basic-medical-care not that long ago. With all these in context, no wonder they work. Btw, it's really really said for older S Korean that are passing these days. They really suffered hard lives and just when their older kids/grandkids are enjoying abundant lives, but they can't really enjoy as much due to age.

85 points by spindritf 12y ago

Reading the abstract from the actual paper itself seems to indicate that people were not more or less satisfied with their jobs after the reduction of working hours. "While satisfaction with working hours increased, reductions had no impact on job and life satisfaction." It seems people did actually like the reduced number of hours, they didn't say that they liked their job more, or found more satisfaction in their life. I feel like for most people a job is something you do to fund the things you really want to do. I would love to see what worker satisfaction would be if their income was fixed, but they could choose whichever job they wanted. (aka. you'll always get paid the same amount of money regardless of what job you do).

leaveyou 12y ago
Interesting spin of the facts indeed. I wonder who paid Rudolph to make this study.. I suspect it wasn't the workers :D
- dbecker 12y ago
  It's very rare for anyone to commission studies like this in the social sciences. Rudolph is a professor at Korea University, and professors do research without extra compensation because it is part of how they get tenure.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ekidd 12y ago
This sounds like it might relate to the "hedonic treadmill": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill in their 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group and as predicted, comparison (with past experiences and current communities) and habituation (to new circumstances) affected levels of happiness such that after the initial impact of the extremely positive or negative events, happiness levels typically went back to the average levels. If things like winning the lottery or losing a limb tend to have short-term effects on happiness, then it's not surprising that a ~10% change in working hours has little effect. Especially if—as another poster mentioned—you just end up taking the work home.
- dmix 12y ago
  Wow, I wonder what effect this has on politics? It was noted that the Arab Spring was largely not the result of political discontent but the fact food prices were becoming very high [0]. It might be the case that unless the basic livelihood of people is consistently threatened - such as not being able to eat - that they will always put up with the political status quo. As we're seeing now with the non-existent political reaction to mass surveillance. [0] http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Somebody said something about never being more than three meals away from revolution? Makes sense.
  - akirarei 12y ago
    For a revolution you need a revolutionary situation in a society, Lenin described two conditions "The bottoms don't want and the tops cannot live in the old way". It is often connected to food or another word necessity's. That was the case during the "arab spring" and was also the case in 1917 Russia, the main slogan for the Russian revolution being "bread and peace". The Russian people had nothing left to lose and the ruling class had nothing left to give(to sustain their power) thus fulfilling the two conditions. All you need then is a catalyst. Which in the case of the "arab spring" was when Mohamed Bouazizi set him self on fire. When it concerns America and mass-surveillance I would see that as a possible catalyst that lacked a revolutionary situation.
- RAB1138 12y ago
  I don't think we should have expected the temporary news of decreased hours to account for greater happiness, but rather that people filled their newly free time with pursuits that made them happy.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Of course a significant contributory factor behind the "hedonic treadmill" is that subjective indications of happiness as survey responses are essentially a proxy for the person's actual emotional state (which of course is largely unmeasurable mental activity). That is of course assuming that happiness actually is a tendency towards certain mental states. People's recollection of how they actually felt during a prior time period is imperfect, and subjective expectations for their maximum possible level of mental satisfaction are subject to revision. Its possible for survey participants to sincerely believe their overall satisfaction is still six out of ten on some crude scale whilst every single measurable or unmeasurable aspect of their mental well being has actually moved in the right direction (fewer anxiety symptoms, higher dopamine levels, less brain activity devoted to sources of irritation, higher confidence etc.) Of course its also quite possible for participants to forget prior survey responses resulting in participants assigning same cardinal score to their happiness when surveyed in two different time periods, yet being able to unequivocally agree that their happiness (or indeed satisfaction with work) is a fair bit higher in period B than period A.

qwerta 12y ago

I can speek for Greece, where is ban on sunday work. For workers it just means they have to work unpaid (and undeclared) overtimes. If you wont to make people happy, just introduce double pay for overtimes and really enforce it!

muyuu 12y ago
If you cannot "really enforce" one policy why do you think you will be able to "really enforce" the other? When enforcement doesn't work rules are guidelines.
- xico 12y ago
  And while you are at wishful thinking, one could also ban the whole “undeclared” Greek system such as how you have to give cash to your MD to get proper treatment, how you declare half the value of a house when you sell and buy it, or how you have to pay extra to get receipts (to attach them to your tax return, well hand-washing done corrupted governments!).
- qwerta 12y ago
  Some rules "enforce themselfs". Unpaid overtime brings positive motivation for emplyers to broken. Paid overtime is negative motivations, and people are more likely to report it and sue due to lost money.
  - muyuu 12y ago
    And they don't sue for the free hours worked on Sunday because...? As I said, you start by creating a culture where rules are enforced, then work from there.
    - qwerta 12y ago
      Nice one :-) Sunday is free because it is 'overtime'. Workers are paid fixed pay per month. Suing for Sunday would not bring any extra money to worker.
12y ago

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

Before you draw any firm conclusions, be sure to read the details in the last couple of paragraphs: The subjects' hours were only reduced by about 10%, an average of five hours a week; many of them were still working 40-50 hours; and many of them were still expected to get the same amount of work done, forcing them to take work home with them. The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough.

virmundi 12y ago
My question is can the government actually regulate this kind of thing? As our Greek friend above said, people worked off the books. One might argue that a rational response to the issue is the works to unite against the tyranny. My rebut is that if you're poor, living paycheck to paycheck, you can't unionize because you'll be out of work and starving.
jerf 12y ago
"The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough." That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect." That's undisprovable. It's possible that doing the thing that produced no results even harder could have some positive effect, but the world is probably even more full of things that produced no results but if pushed harder will have negative effects. Part of being a real scientist is acknowledging that this can only be interpreted as evidence against the idea that forcing shorter work hours will make people happier, no matter how cognitively or emotionally challenging it is. That's being a scientist. (To forstall the two obvious replies: Consider the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof". And once again, let me underline the scientific dangers in "We tested for X->Y and found no evidence for it, but we're still going to assert that X->Y." This logic doesn't just apply to "work hour reduction", it applies to all null results, of all kinds.)
- Goronmon 12y ago
  >That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect." Is it scary? I mean, if I go from getting no exercise to spending 30 seconds a day exercising, but see no change in my weight, should I therefore conclude that exercising is pointless? Or should I try exercising more and also maybe be more careful with my eating habits? I think the scary thing is when people try to take complicated subjects and distill them down to shallow talking points.

joshdance 12y ago

TLDR - No it didn't, they don't know why, it may have improved well-being.

crpatino 12y ago
It's not as if they do not have a clue why... "Why might this be? Rudolf points out previous evidence that in the short term, capping hours often just means employees have to get the same work done in a shorter time, which is likely to be stress-inducing."

s3nnyy 12y ago

Happiness-wise South Korea ranks 41. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report). Here in Switzerland (3rd in happiness) it is not unusual that people are employed only 3-4 days / week and still make enough money to live well. I don't know of any other country where this is commonplace. (Full disclosure: If you're from the EU and looking for a tech-job over here, I'd be happy to help out).

mathattack 12y ago
I think working hours is just a symptom. Look at the funnel... Korean kids spend an ungodly amount of time in class and doing test prep. Putting a cosmetic limit to the amount of hours worked doesn't change society on it's own.
- s3nnyy 12y ago
  Yet, South Korea ranks high for a First-World-Country in "increase in happiness". If one sorts "World Happiness Report" according to "change in happiness 2005-2007", the top countries are mostly from the second- or third-world with the exception of South Korea.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    I think that the parsimonious explanation for that is that Korea's wealth per capita has exploded in the late 20th and early 21st Century.
ttty 12y ago
Check out my blog, what jobs do you have? :) http://webdesignporto.com/ http://webdesignporto.com/
dirktheman 12y ago
Same here at the number 4 on the list... I work 4 days a week, my wife works 3. My employer also works 4. My day off is awesome, and accounts for a lot of my happiness. And the happiness of my kids, I'm sure! US may be the leading in economy, but we (Northern and Western Europe) are way ahead of you guys when it comes to a healthy work-life balance...

seanstickle 12y ago

I favor something more like a Results-Only Work Environment (http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe-standards http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe-standards), where the focus is on the results and not on how many hours are worked. Too many companies (even startups) are conservatives and traditionalists in the sense of thinking that work needs to be done within certain hours and at a certain place, even when those are not drivers of the results. I'm hired to deliver certain results, not to work a number of hours. If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. And there's no reason to be in an office, unless the office is instrumental to achieving those results. The focus on how many hours people should work is a fetish that reinforces a still-dominant 20th century office culture.

grecy 12y ago
I agree with you personally, but to play the devil's advocate a little: >If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. If you are able to consistently deliver the required results in only 10 hours of "work", it's clear that any organization will slowly ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week. How would you agree on results that are "enough for the company" that won't grow endlessly when they see you're only working 10 hours a week?
- seanstickle 12y ago
  This is a cultural change that the company has to go through. They're paying me for the results. Not for the hours. Thinking that they'll "ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week" means that you're still thinking that you're paying for hours. Still, it's the responsibility of all employees to improve the process that they work in, just as part of the company's continuous improvement. Which means that more/better results will be delivered over time anyways. How do you agree on results that are "enough for the company" when you hire a consultant (assuming they're an intelligent consultant and don't charge by the hour).

yongjik 12y ago

"Imposed" should be in gigantic scare quotes. Many Korean businesses, big and small, routinely make employees work overtime without payment. Maybe we should ask the question after we do have an enforced limit.

OSButler 12y ago
The stories I've heard from friends & family working and living in Korea reflect exactly that. There's not just uncompensated overtime, but you're also expected to join up when it comes to company retreats. So, not only do you give away 10+ hours every day to the company, but then you'll also be incorporated over the weekend, due to some company outing. I also doubt that any imposed limit would actually be enforced or tolerated by the employer. The unpaid hours go directly into the prices, so some businesses wouldn't be able to compete anymore if they suddenly had to pay for that overtime. The passion my friends put into their work is admirable and nothing short of impressive, but I can't help but notice that there's not much time left for family, or anything else besides work for that matter.

hawkice 12y ago

I think a helpful lens is to generally worry about what you are funging against. Time, as a fungible resource, can be allocated to work (generally done in fixed portions), and the remainder to other activities. In America (I have no knowledge specific to Korea), a large percentage of those other activities is "watch television". People self-assess as less happy watching television than they do while working. So giving out more time may increase access to things that make people happy (spending time with loved ones) but also increase time spent on things that make them unhappy. Obviously this is only part of the story, but looking at replacement activities would be a great next step.

dba7dba 12y ago

S Korea just a generation ago was a developing world, with a harsh dictator. Two generations ago, it was really at the rock bottom nation on the globe in terms of any ranking you can think of (poverty/violence/dictatorship/low-education/etc). Pick any poor nation in Asia/Africa and it was probably doing better than S Korea. Remember these: History of Korean War, there's no much natural resource to sell off, with 3 powerful nations (who all have either invaded Korea in the past and view it as a potential target) nearby, with N Korea 30 miles from Seoul, AND (get this) no escape route over land in case of a military conflict (S Korea is pretty much an island now and you canNOT walk/drive to flee S Korea), they better really really get their house in order to survive. Younger S Korean sociologists/commentators lament about how the intense competition is driving people to commit suicides (yes tragic) but they forget many, many more people died/suffered from poverty/basic-medical-care not that long ago. With all these in context, no wonder they work. Btw, it's really really said for older S Korean that are passing these days. They really suffered hard lives and just when their older kids/grandkids are enjoying abundant lives, but they can't really enjoy as much due to age.