Home > Opinion > Columns

Korea’s obsession with OECD statistics

Published: 17 Sep. 2025, 00:02

Ahn Hai-ri

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Comedian Park Myung-soo stirred debate with a pointed remark on his radio program. Commenting on the idea of a four-and-a-half-day workweek, he asked, “If our population is shrinking, how can we also cut working hours? Back when people worked a five-and-a-half-day week, life was tough, but that hard work built the prosperity we enjoy today.” His skepticism toward reducing working hours drew wide attention.

President Lee Jae Myung, during his campaign, pledged to reduce Korea’s average annual working hours to below the OECD average by 2030. In July, he reiterated that commitment, noting that Koreans work more than 120 hours longer each year than the OECD average. Given Lee’s strong advocacy — underscored in his recent remark at a town-hall meeting that he is now “the most powerful person in Korea” — Park’s criticism on live radio provoked divided reactions. Supporters said his concern was valid, while detractors argued that an entertainer cannot fully understand the burdens of office workers.

A member of the Korean Financial Industry Union speaks on the need to introduce a 4.5-day workweek during a press conference held in Jung District, central Seoul, on Sept. 8. The union said it will go on a strike unless the demand met. [YONHAP]

It is true, as Lee pointed out, that Koreans work longer hours than the OECD average, and differing views are inevitable. Yet the controversy raises a deeper question: Why should Korea aim to align itself with the average of the OECD, an organization dominated by 27 European states among its 38 members, while rising economies such as China, Taiwan, Singapore and the UAE remain outside?

Lee Hyun-jae, a 96-year-old former prime minister and honorary professor of economics at Seoul National University, recently published an essay in the Korea Economic Forum titled “Korean Economics and Economists: Reflection and Suggestions.” He criticized the academic community for failing to consider basic questions, such as how many people Korea’s territory can reasonably support. He described this uncritical acceptance of given standards as laziness. The deference to OECD statistics, he implied, is not so different.

Since joining the OECD in 1996 — hailed at the time as entry into the “club of advanced nations” — Korea has frequently used OECD data as both a benchmark and a shield. Successive administrations have cited OECD figures as a tool to justify policy initiatives or to deflect criticism. This tendency has been reinforced by a national complex, where invoking OECD comparisons carries an almost automatic authority.

The Lee administration, just past its 100th day, has followed the same pattern. From workplace safety and national debt ratios to food prices, the president has often leaned on OECD statistics when imposing regulations or countering critics. Some indicators, such as Korea’s longstanding first-place ranking in suicide rates, are clearly relevant. But others have been cited without sufficient attention to economic structures or social context.

The danger is that blind reliance on OECD norms can lead to misguided policies that undermine national development and diminish quality of life. The medical reforms pursued under the Yoon Suk Yeol government offer an example. Yoon pushed aggressively to expand medical school quotas, justifying the plan by pointing to Korea’s relatively low number of doctors per capita among OECD members. In a televised address ahead of last year’s general election, he emphasized the OECD ranking. Yet the outcome risks eroding a system that, by many measures, already led the world in accessibility, with Korea ranking first globally in outpatient visits per person and same-day availability of care. Instead of strengthening that advantage, policy choices may drag Korea closer to the OECD average of higher costs and reduced access.

OECD Secretary General Mathias Cormann and MCM members pose for a family photo after the opening ceremony of the 2025 Ministerial Council Meeting at the OECD Headquarters in Paris, France, June 3, 2025. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

Other sectors show similar distortions. A Financial Times article using OECD data noted that French retirees now receive pension payments exceeding the average wages of current workers — a fiscal imbalance that threatens sustainability. Yet French citizens, accustomed to extensive welfare benefits, protested in the streets against President Emmanuel Macron’s modest proposal to reduce public holidays. Much of Europe faces parallel challenges, and its trajectory is far less compelling today than it appeared in 1996.

Korea should not cling uncritically to OECD benchmarks as if they remain the sole model of progress. The organization’s data can provide valuable perspective, but an overreliance risks turning statistical averages into unexamined policy goals.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.