The Asbestos Ban in Korea from a Grassroots Perspective: Why Did It Occur?

Yu-Ryong Yoon, Kyeong Min Kwak, Yeyong Choi, Kanwoo Youn, Jinwook Bahk, Dong-Mug Kang and Domyung Paek
Additional contact information
Yu-Ryong Yoon: Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
Kyeong Min Kwak: Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
Yeyong Choi: Asia Citizen’s Center for Environment and Health, Seoul 03184, Korea
Kanwoo Youn: Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Wonjin Green Hospital, Seoul 02228, Korea
Jinwook Bahk: Department of Public Health, Keimyung University, Daegu 42601, Korea
Dong-Mug Kang: Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan 50612, Korea
Domyung Paek: Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea

IJERPH, 2018, vol. 15, issue 2, 1-12

Abstract: In 2009, asbestos was finally banned in Korea, about 70 years after the first opening of asbestos mines under Japanese control. After having presented the history of asbestos industry, together with its regulations and health effects over time, we constructed narrative analyses of how the asbestos issue under the prevailing risk system was managed by whom and for what purpose, to provide context for the change. We could identify five different phases: laissez-faire, politico-technical, economic–managerial, health-oriented cultural, and human rights-based post-cultural risk systems. The changes leading to the asbestos ban evolved over different phases, and each phase change was necessary to reach the final ban, in that, without resolving the previous issues by examining different categories of potential alternatives, either the final ban was not possible or, even if instituted, could not be sustained. An asbestos ban could be introduced when all the alternatives to these issues, including legitimate political windows, economic rationalizations, health risk protections, and human rights sensitivities, were available. We think the alternatives that we had were not in perfect shape, but in more or less loosely connected forms, and hence we had to know how to build solidarities between different stakeholders to compensate for the imperfections.

Keywords: asbestos ban; Korea; narrative analysis; health-oriented cultural change; health and safety stage; grassroots (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/198/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/198/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:198-:d:128600

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().