Untitled - UNU-IAS

UNU/IAS Working Paper No. 95 

A Comparative Study on 

Environmental Policy Development Processes in 

The Three East Asian Countries of Japan, Korea, and China 

Yohei HARASHIMA* 

Tsuneyuki MORITA** 

November 2001*** 

We are deeply grateful to Prof. Tarcisio Della Senta of UNU/IAS, Prof. Fu-chen Lo of UNU/IAS, Prof. Akio 

Morishima of Sophia University, and Prof. Kazu Kato of Nagoya University for their generous support. 

*Yohei HARASHIMA was a Ph.D. Fellow of UNU/IAS from October 1996 to May 1997. He is now working 

at the Organization to Establish the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. 

**Tsuneyuki MORITA is Head of Global Warming Response Team, National Institute for 

Environmental Studies, Japan, and also an Adjunct Professor of UNU/IAS. 

***Based on paper originally submitted in 1997 with subsequent minor editorial revisions.

Abstract 

This study makes a comparative analysis of the environmental policy development processes 

in the three East Asian countries of Japan, Korea and China. Policy development histories and 

relative socio-political background are investigated and compared in relation to their economic 

growth using quantitative economic indicators. These comparisons show that environmental 

policies in these three countries, in the long run, have been converging, but with a certain timelag, 

and the environmental policy development processes in these three countries were closely 

related to each country’s economic growth. However, when compared to Japan, the tempo of 

environmental policy development in China and Korea has been faster than that of their 

economic growth. Major differences identified in these processes were caused by several factors, 

which are the role of local government, information disclosure, influence from international 

pressure, latecomer, function of market mechanism, and environmental issues in the policy 

agenda. In the final section, the applicability of these findings to other East Asian countries’ 

experiences is also examined. 

Keywords: East Asia, environmental policy, development process, economic growth, 

comparative study, 

1

1.Introduction 

High rates of economic growth began in Japan in the mid 1950s, and in Korea (Republic of 

Korea) in the mid 1960s. Since the late 1980s, China (People’s Republic of China) has 

experienced an unprecedented rapid economic growth. Economic activities in the East Asian 

region have had an immense influence on global environmental issues, due to such rapid 

consecutive economic growth in these countries. Domestic environmental issues in these three 

countries also have been mutually related. 

Quite recently, the literature on the study of comparative environmental policy in East Asian 

region has grown rapidly (see Kojima and Fujisaki,1993; Korea Institute for International 

Economic Policy,1993; O’Connor,1994; Imura and Katsuhara,1995; Kato,1996 etc.). Authors 

also have initiated this and published a part of research outcomes (see Lee J, Harashima, Lee D, 

and Morita,1995; Harashima,1995; Harashima and Morita,1995; Harashima,1996). Based on 

these previous research outcomes and additional new information and data, this paper makes a 

comparative analysis of the environmental policy in the three East Asian countries of Japan, 

Korea and China. 

Vogel, reviewing the comparative environmental policy literature of the 1970s-1980s, 

writes: 

The comparative environmental policy literature’s most notable feature is its exclusive 

reliance on case-study material. Typically, policies in two or more countries are examined, their 

similarities and differences are enumerated and an explanation of the observed differences is 

postulated. None of the studies here incorporated statistical analysis, correlative methods, or 

time-series data.…[t]he research examined is virtually devoid of quantitative data. Interviews, 

document interpretation, and prior research form the foundation for the literature in this field. 

Nor does this appear to be a transitory phenomenon; there is no evidence that research is 

becoming more quantitative. Analysis in this field also trends to be ahistorical. In spite of the 

existence of a rich historical literature on the evolution of environmental policies in several 

countries, this material has been ignored by scholars in the field.…Moreover, when compared to 

other area of comparative public policy research, the material in this area trends to be highly 

descriptive (Vogel,1987, pp.102-103). 

In this paper, however, the development processes of environmental policy in East Asian 

countries are compared in relation to their economic growth using quantitative economic 

indicators. Since the late 1980s, the ultimate goal of environmental policy has been “sustainable 

2

development” (World Commission on Environment and Development,1987,pp.43-46). 

Sustainable development became even more relevant with the United Nations Conference on 

Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. Pearce et al. write, “Fundamental to an 

understanding of sustainable development is the fact that the economy is not separate from the 

environment in which we live (Pearce, Markandya, and Barbier,1989,p.4).” In short, the pivot of 

sustainable development is an integrated economy and environment. Therefore, it is necessary 

to understand environmental policy in relation to economic growth in order to achieve 

sustainable development. 

2.Analytical Framework 

The analytical framework used here is shown in Figure 1. This paper consists of the 

following four parts. 

The first component is national experience. This part investigates environmental policy 

development histories and the respective socio-political background of each country, divided 

into four policy development stages (Initial Period, Progressive Period, Consolidation Period, 

and Focus-shift Period). 

The second part, based on the results of the above national experiences, is a comparative 

analysis on environmental policy development. The environmental policy of each country is 

compared at each policy development stage. 

Third is an examination of the relationship between economic growth and environmental 

policy development using key economic indicators, such as the rate of economic growth, GDP 

per capita, energy consumption per capita, energy intensity of GDP, and structural change. 

In conclusion, the fourth part is a summary of similarities and differences shown in the above 

analysis. Additionally, we would like to consider the applicability of these findings to other East 

Asian countries’ experiences. 

3. National Experience 

3-1 Ini tial period 

The term of “Initial Period” is used here to mean the period that the government becomes 

aware of local environmental issues, and initiates the policy measures to conserve local 

environment. 

3

1) Japan (1945-1954) 

Since the mid-Meiji era, environmental disruption caused by mining in the Ashio and other 

areas has occurred. Nevertheless, the Japanese government did not pay any serious attention to 

environmental issues, because the government, after a while, had built up a war regime. 

Environmental policy in Japan was initiated after the Second World War. 

After the war, GHQ (the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers) pushed forward the 

democratization of political and economic institutions in Japan, and rewrote the Constitution of 

Japan, thereby radically introducing a democratic form of government in 1946. As Japan’s 

postwar rehabilitation occured, the air and rivers in large cities, such as Tokyo, Osaka, 

Yokohama, and Fukuoka, were gradually polluted. Initially, such pollution issues were regarded 

as a policy concern for local governments. In the 1950s, several large local governments enacted 

ordinances for pollution control, and the first of these was the Tokyo Prefectural Ordinance for 

Factory Pollution Control of 1949. In contrast, the central government was blind to these issues. 

It is important to note that Japan’s environmental policy was characterized by local 

governments’ initiatives. 

2) Korea (1961-1969) 

The Korean War broke out on the Korean Peninsula in 1950-1953. The Korean government 

could not afford to concentrate on environmental issues. Thus, environmental policy in Korea 

was initiated when Park Chung-Hee took power in 1961. 

Under the conditions of the North-South division of the Korean Peninsula, President Park 

built up an authoritarian political regime, and stimulated modernization through a Five-year 

Economic Development Plan in 1962. At that time, political leaders in Korea recognized 

industrial smoke as a symbol of Korea’s economic development. Even though the Pollution 

Prevention Act, which was modeled on Japanese legislation, was enacted in 1963, it was not 

properly enforced to effectively alleviate the environmental problems caused by economic 

development (Koo,1979,p.11). 

3) China (1973-1976) 

At the time of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, under the leadership 

of Mao Zedong, environmental issues did not enjoy the level of consciousness found at current 

stage (Qu,1991,p.211). Although no environmental laws and regulations were enacted, 

relevant clauses were written into other laws and regulations such as the “Provisional Sanitary 

Criteria for Designs of Industrial Enterprises of 1956” and the “Provisional Outline for Water 

and Soil Conservation of 1957”. 

Afterward, the Strategy of the Great Leap Forward in 1958-1961 was a setback and 

subsequent to it was the Cultural Revolution in 1966-1976. During the first half of this era, the 

4

country’s political, economic and social lives were pushed into disorder. In 1972, significant 

environmental problems such as water pollution in the Dalian Bay and the Guanting Reservoir 

became widely known. In June of the same year, Premier Zhou Enlai sent a Chinese delegation 

to the United Nations Conference on Human Environment (UNCHE). At this conference, the 

Chinese delegation stated that the fundamental cause of environmental pollution lay in 

capitalist countries. At the same time, however, the Chinese government became aware of the 

seriousness of China’s environmental issues(Qu,1991,p.214). 

In 1973, the First National Conference on Environmental Protection proposed by Premier 

Zhou was held in Beijing. Numerous cases of pollution and damages were reported by delegates 

from all over the nation. The “Certain Regulations on the Protection and Improvement of 

Environment” and the policy of “overall planning, rational layout, comprehensive utilization, 

turning harm into benefit, relying on the masses, everybody set to work, protecting the 

environment and bring benefit to the people” were approved at this conference. The Chinese 

government, thereafter, began to stress the campaign for comprehensive utilization of the 

industrial “three wastes (waste gas, waste water, and solid waste)” in order to reduce the 

hazards of pollution. It also promulgated the “Trail Standards of Discharge of Industrial Three 

Wastes of 1973”, which regulated the discharge of specific toxic substances and the height of 

chimneys in main industrial sectors (e.g. power plant, metallurgical industry, chemical industry). 

Moreover, in 1974, the Environmental Protection Leading Group of the State Council was 

formed, but this was not an authorized government body. 

3-2 Progressive Period 

The term “Progressive Period” is used here to mean the period that the government, on a 

sectoral basis, adopts various policy responses against environmental issues, such as water 

pollution, air pollution and destruction of nature, and creates administrative organizations in the 

field of environmental policy. 

1) Japan (1955-1964) 

In the mid 1950s, under the state measure of establishing petrochemical complexes and the 

plan for national income doubling, rapid growth of Japan’s economy began. During this period 

of rapid economic growth, several kinds of pollution diseases occurred, such as Minamata 

disease in 1956 and Itai-itai (ouch-ouch) disease in 1957. In 1958, nearly seven hundred 

fishermen in Urayasu strongly protested against water pollution caused by Honshu-seishi Co., 

one of Japan’s biggest paper companies. In response to this, Diet passed two laws that year to 

preserve water quality. These laws were the first environmental legislations enacted at the 

central level. The Honsyu-seishi Incident is symbolic of the strong influence of citizens’ 

movements on Japan’s environmental policy development. 

In the subsequent year, pollution spread across the nation, mainly in petrochemical complex 

5

areas. Pollution damages became so serious that mass outbreaks of Yokkaichi Asthma and red 

tide occurred in many parts of the country in the early 1960s. In addition to the two laws for 

water quality preservation, a Law for Smoke Regulation was enacted in 1962. Due to these 

serious conditions, several collective citizens’ movements against both pollution and 

development projects were established by the mid 1960’s. For example, a citizens’ protest 

against a plan for the establishment of a petrochemical complex in Numazu, Mishima, and 

Shimizu persuaded local governors to abandon the plan in 1964. Then, in order to tackle these 

pollution issues, the Pollution Control Division was created in the Ministry of Health and 

Welfare in 1964. Thus, the Japanese environmental policy, in this period, can be said to have 

been enacted only after damages had actually occurred (Morishima,1981,p.78). 

2) Korea (1970-1979) 

Since 1967, air pollution in the Ulsan industrial area, the first planned industrial area 

established by the Korean government has increased, leading to health problems and harm to 

farm products. Nonetheless, the government did not launch anti-pollution measures in earnest. 

Rather, under the authoritarian political regime, anti-pollution movements during the late 1960s 

were regarded as anti-government movements. It was proposed by the Korean government 

that polluting industries in the Ulsan area compensate pollution victims and the people living 

there resettle in other areas. Thus, at that time, the Korean government usually took measures 

on a case-by-case basis. 

In the 1970s, the Korean government stimulated the growth of heavy and chemical 

industries, and launched the Semaul Movement for the modernization of rural areas. Besides the 

Ulan case, other cases of pollution and pollution damage such as red tide in the Chi Nhe Bay in 

1972, spread across the nation, especially around the government established industrial areas. 

In order to coordinate the mechanisms of pollution control that had previously been scattered in 

various administrative agencies, in 1967, the Pollution Control Section was created in the 

Ministry of Public Health and Social Affairs. This section was upgraded to the Pollution Control 

Division in 1970. Since then, the administrative organization for pollution control has 

expanded. 

3) China (1977-1988) 

China’s environmental policy had progressed after the Cultural Revolution era. At the Third 

Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China of 1978, a 

significant decision was made to switch the work focus to socialist modernization construction. 

This was a great historical turning point, and the Chinese government, with Deng Xiaoping as 

political leader, launched the “Policy of Reforming and Opening up to the Outside World”. At 

that time, the accumulated environmental issues from the Cultural Revolution era had begun to 

emerge, and, in addition, industrial pollution also had grown worse due to economic growth 

under the policy reform. It was pointed out that the state of air pollution in large cities in 

6

China in the mid 1980s was quite similar to that of Tokyo in Japan in the 1960s 

(Hishida,1986,pp.17-18). 

A provision of the Constitution of 1978 reads, “The state protects the environment and 

natural resources, and prevents pollution and other public hazard.” This was the first time that 

environmental protection was written into in the Chinese Constitution, laying a foundation for 

the legal construction of environmental protection (in the 1982 Constitution, more 

sophisticated environmental protection articles were instituted. Also in 1978, the Party Central 

Committee approved the “Main Points of Work Report on Environmental Protection”, drafted 

by the Environmental Protection Leading Group of the State Council, which stated that it was 

an important component of China’s socialist construction and modernization to eliminate 

pollution and protect the environment. This was the first directive about environmental 

protection in the history of the Communist Party of China. Additionally, environmental 

protection was included in the Sixth Five-year Plan (1981-1985), and defined as a strategic 

target of China’s modernization at the Second National Conference on Environmental 

Protection of 1983. 

While environmental protection had received much attention in the late 1970s, it was in 

1979 that the Environmental Protection Law (in Trail Implementation) was enacted. This Trail 

Law, modeled on advanced policy responses adopted in developed countries, introduced several 

principles of environmental protection and various policy responses, such as the principle of 

“Who Pollutes, Who Treats”, environmental impact assessment system (in the absence of 

public involvement procedures), pollutants discharges fee system, and “Three Simultaneity 

System (this system means that for all newly built, rebuilt and the expanded projects or projects 

undergoing technological trans-formation, their facilities on preventing pollution or other public 

hazards should be designed, constructed or put into operation simultaneously with their main 

project.)”. The enactment of the Trail Law brought China’s environmental protection efforts 

under the legal system (Zhang and Jin,1992,p.7). Consequently, sectoral laws for prevention 

and control of marine pollution, water pollution, air pollution and other sectoral environmental 

issues have been enacted since the mid 1980s. Governmental institutions for environmental 

protection and their functions were also specified in the Trail Law at both central and local 

levels. According to these articles, the State Council established the Administration of 

Environmental Protection in the Ministry of Urban and Rural Construction and Environmental 

Protection, as a result of the governmental institution reform in 1982, and the Environmental 

Protection Commission in 1984 whose functions have included investigating and examining 

environmental policy, initiating new plans, and acting as the organizer and mediator for 

nationwide environmental activities. Many local governments (provinces, autonomous regions, 

and municipalities), following the central government, also have established institutions for 

environmental protection since then. 

7

As a part of the policy reform since 1978, public policies in all sorts of fields also have been 

dramatically transformed. Above all, both deregulation of population movement since 1984 and 

energy pricing reform (to adopt market based pricing system) since 1985 have been closely 

related to the environmental policy development in China. The former has accelerated 

urbanization (Wakabayashi,1989, pp.161-188) and the latter has, through economic incentives, 

contributed to increased energy efficiency (Levine et al.,1992, pp.422-423). Unlike 

developments in either Japan or Korea, these experiences were unique to China. 

3-3 Consol idation Period 

The term “Consolidation Period” is used here to mean the period in which the above 

sectoral approach shifts to a more comprehensive approach through consolidating 

administrative measures in the field of environmental policy and enacting basic law for 

environmental conservation. 

1) Japan (1965-1974) 

During rapid economic growth, pollution issues had overridden Japan. For instance, air 

pollution in Tokyo where photochemical-smog occurred was most serious in 1970. The 

Japanese government was confronted with not only domestic public demands but also 

pressures from foreign countries, especially from the United States, such as the criticism of 

Japanese pollution-dumping in the U.S. President’s statement of 1970, to strengthen pollution 

control. Accordingly, the Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control that was essentially a 

charter aimed at air pollution, water pollution, noise, vibration, land subsidence, and offensive 

odor, was enacted in 1967. 

Japan adopted, in a relatively short period since the Basic Law for Environmental Pollution 

Control of 1967, almost complete anti-pollution measures. Based on the Basic Law, various 

policy responses, such as the Law for Air Pollution Prevention of 1968, environmental quality 

standard for sulfur oxides (SOx) of 1969, measures to lower the sulfur content of fuel of 1969, 

publishing the annual Environmental White Paper since 1969, and environmental quality 

standard for water quality of 1970, were adopted. The so-called “Pollution Diet” held in 1970 

also enacted or amended fourteen laws which were related to environmental pollution control. 

Moreover, the Japanese government established the Environment Agency in 1971, as cabinet 

level, in order to consolidate the administrative powers and responsibilities of environmental 

pollution control, including nature conservation, which previously had been scattered among 

many governmental agencies. 

Besides the above anti-pollution measures in the public sector, at that time, private 

companies also had increased interests in pollution control, with several reasons. Since the early 

1970s, governmental subsidiary measures for private environmental investment had rapidly 

expanded. In 1972, the legal case on Yokkaichi Asthma, in which asthmatic patients claimed 

8

damages from the polluters. Polluting companies lost the legal case. Furthermore, the 

regulation on exhaust gases in the USA’s Muskie Act of 1970 and the Oil Crisis in 1973 forced 

each Japanese exporting company, particularly automobile manufacturers, to develop new 

energy-saving and environmentally sound technologies. Thus, an increase of environmental 

investment and technological development in the private sector, especially in 1974-1976, 

contributed considerably to the making and implementation of advanced policy responses, such 

as the enactment of the Law concerning Compensation for Pollution Related Health Damage of 

1973 and the strengthening of the regulation on exhaust gases of 1976 (it was called the 

“Syowa 53 rd fiscal year regulation”). 

2) Korea (1980-1989) 

Rapid economic growth had given rise to significant environmental issues, such as health 

injuries caused by water pollution in the Kwan Yang Bay in 1977 and collective citizens’ protest 

against the construction of a dam at the estuary of Nak Dong River in 1978, just before Cung 

Du-Whan took power in the late 1970s. In response these issues, the Environment Preservation 

Act was enacted in 1977 (it since then has been amended several times), in comprehensive 

legislative form. It provided an administrative framework for environmental control and 

preservation (Koo,1979,p.13). In the next year, the President also declared a Charter of Nature 

Conservation, which accelerated the campaign of nature conservation as a part of environmental 

policy. 

Through the Environment Preservation Act, for the first time, the Korean government set 

water quality standards in 1978 and sulfur dioxides (SO2) standard for air quality in 1979. 

Subsequently, in 1980, the government established the Environment Administration, as a subcabinet 

agency in the Ministry of Public Health and Social Affairs, in order to meet the 

environmental control. The government also began to regularly publish an Environmental 

White Paper in 1982. Moreover, the Constitution of 1980 guaranteed people the right to live in 

clean and healthy environment, under the influence of arguments within Japan and USA. Then, 

the amended Environment Preservation Act introduced several new features of environmental 

policy responses, such as the system of environmental impact assessment (in the absence of 

public involvement procedures, at that time) in 1982 and the emission charge system in 1983. 

In 1981, it was decided that the Olympic Games would be held in Seoul. Then, air pollution 

in Seoul, which had become most serious in 1979, was regarded as the urgent policy agenda. In 

order to improve air quality, the Korean government began to supply lower sulfur content oil in 

1981, strengthened vehicle emission standards in 1987, and required the supply and use of 

clean fuels such as LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) in large cities in 1988. Another significant issue 

that the Korean government faced in this period was a mass outbreak of pollution diseases in 

the Onsan Industrial area. In 1985, the so-called Onsan disease received much attention 

nationwide through newspaper’s reports. The Korea government, investigating the actual 

9

condition of the disease, however, denied any connection between the disease and industries’ 

activities, and suggested people living in this area resettle elsewhere as in the above Ulsan case. 

3) China (1989-) 

Environmental policy development in China has shifted to new stage since the late 1980s, 

with the establishment of the National Environmental Protection Agency in the State Council in 

1988 and the enactment of the Environmental Protection Law in 1989 which replaced the Trial 

Law of 1979. Prior to that, policy reform in China had taken place for 10 years until the 

Chinese government began to pursue the transition from a socialist planned economy to a 

socialist market economy. In 1988, the National Environmental Protection Agency became 

independent of the existing ministries and conducted unified supervision and management of 

environmental protection work throughout the country. The Environmental Protection Law of 

1989 provided basic principles for China’s environmental protection work and introduced 

systems for the prevention and control of environmental pollution. This Law is similar to the 

Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control in Japan and the Environmental Preservation Act 

in Korea in the consolidation of environmental policy, despite a number of differences. Nature 

conservation also became a part of environmental protection work through the China 

Conservation Strategy of 1986, which was the first systematic guide for natural resources and 

environmental protection. Moreover, while information disclosure in China has been strictly 

limited for a long time, the Chinese government has begun to release environmental 

information through an annual Report on the State of the Environment, in compliance with an 

article of the Environmental Protection Law since 1990. 

Although the institutional aspects of environmental policy in China are, to a certain extent 

consolidated, so far China’s policy has arguably achieved few good results. The most crucial 

reason for this has been the scarcity of funds and technology for environmental protection 

(Qu,1990,p.104). In order to resolve such problems, the Chinese government has not only 

taken several domestic measures, such as formulating the “Regulations of the State Council on 

Integrating Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control with Technological Renovation of 

1983”, but also demanded developed countries to provide financial and technical assistance for 

environmental protection. Since the late 1980s, China has adopted a very positive stance on 

environmental diplomacy. In the preparatory process for UNCED, the Chinese government 

invited ministers of developing countries to attend the Ministerial Conference of the 

Environment and Development in 1991. This conference adopted the so-called Beijing 

Declaration, which demanded new and additional financing and technology transfer to 

developed countries. In UNCED, Premier Li Peng himself attended and signed a series of legal 

documents. Thus, China’s positive stance on environmental diplomacy is in large part due to 

practical needs for funds and technology (Hao,1992,pp.30-32). 

10

3-4 Focus -shi ft Period 

The term “Focus-shift Period” refers to the period that follows consolidation of the 

environmental policy when public concern shifts to new environmental issues. For example 

shifting from pollution issues to improvement of quality of life. The government, in response to 

the shift, reexamines existing policy responses in order to address the new issues as the policy 

agenda. 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment 

Committee conducted a review of environmental policy in Japan in 1967-1977, and concluded, 

“Japan has won many pollution abatement battles, but has not yet the war for environmental 

quality (OECD,1977,p.83).” Thus the Japanese government initiated to address the new 

environmental issues, such as the improvement of quality of life since the late 1970s. The 

Environment Agency proposed several new measures to create a more comfortable environment 

(“Amenity”). The environmental policy development in Japan, however, slowed down by the 

early 1980s. Even though several large local governments, such as Kawasaki, had by the late 

1970s incorporated the environmental impact assessment system into their ordinances or 

administrative guidelines prior to the central government, the Environmental Impact Assessment 

Bill was defeated in the Diet of 1983. Since the mid 1980s, global environmental issues, such as 

global warming and ozone depletion, have emerged and received much attention as a part of 

the policy agenda. By way of UNCED, the Basic Environment Law, which replaced the Basic 

Law for Environmental Pollution Control of 1967, was enacted in order to provide the basic 

principles and the policy instruments for environmental issues, which included not only 

pollution issues but also improvement of quality of life and global environmental issues. 

Currently, the most important task for Japan’s environmental policy is how the government, 

companies, and citizens will implement the Basic Environment Plan, which was established in 

1994 based on the Basic Law of 1993 in order to comprehensively and systematically promote 

the policies for environmental conservation. 

On the other hand, the Korean government, soon after the Declaration for Democratization 

of 1987 initiated by Roh Tae-Woo and the Seoul Olympic Games of 1988, began to consider 

how economic development policies needed to be changed in order to promote economic and 

ecological prosperity at the same time (Ministry of Environment,1992,p.70). Korea which 

guaranteed people the right to live in a comfortable environment in the 1990 Constitution, took 

legislative action to address the new environmental issues of an improved quality of life and of a 

comfortable environment. In 1990, the Environment Administration was upgraded to the 

cabinet level Environment Agency. The National Assembly passed the Basic Environmental 

Policy Act which replaced the Environmental Preservation Act of 1977, and several other 

environment-related Acts for air quality prevention, water quality prevention, noise and 

vibration control, and toxic chemicals control. In addition, as a result of the democratization that 

11

has occurred in the late 1980s, campaigns in the mass media for environmental preservation 

have become prominent. Even though Korea came to have a complete portfolio of sophisticated 

environmental policies in the early 1990s, several pollution-related incidents have still taken 

place, such as the phenol discharge incident at the Nak Dong River in 1991, and the citizens’ 

protest against reclaimed land for waste disposal at Kim Po in 1993. 

In contrast to the above two country cases, environmental policy development in China has 

not yet come to the Focus-shift Period. While the Chinese economy is currently in the process of 

unprecedented rapid growth, it can be pointed out that China will face an environmental crisis 

caused by economic growth and population increase in the near future (see Smil,1993). China 

still gives first priority to her national economic development (People’s Republic of 

China,1992,p.8). Meanwhile, foreign countries expect that China will adopt appropriate 

responses to global environmental issues. 

4.Comparative Analysis on Environmental Policy 

4-1 Similarities and Time-lags 

The results of the identification of historical similarities are summarized in Table 1. These 

results show that, while there were certain time-lags, these three countries have roughly had 

similar experiences in the field of environmental policy. Even nature conservation policy, which 

was initiated in a different way from pollution control, has become a part of environmental 

policy in each country during the Consolidation Period. The historical processes of 

environmental policy development in China and Korea were quite similar to that of Japan. In 

other words, environmental policies in these three countries, in the long run, have been 

converging. 

Moreover, a comparison with significant events which marked the development stages of 

environmental policy in each country shows that the time-lag for environmental policy 

development between Japan and China is 21-24 years, and between Japan and Korea is 12-14 

years (see Figure 2). 

4-2 Comparison of Characteristics 

In a comparison of the characteristics of environmental policy development in each country 

at each development stage, several differences among these three countries have can be found 

as follows. 

1) Ini tial Period 

The most remarkable and distinctive feature of Japan’s experience was the local 

governments’ initiatives. Large local governments in Japan initiated environmental policy, 

beginning with the Tokyo Prefectural Ordinance for Pollution Control of 1949. 

12

Subsequently, they adopted several advanced policy instruments such as environmental impact 

assessment in advance of the central government. Such local governments’ initiatives were 

possible because of the Local Autonomy System provided in the 1946 Constitution. On the 

other hand, Korea, in the Park Chung-Hee era, centralized her administrative powers, and the 

central government played the main role in environmental preservation. Until quite recently, 

local governments in Korea showed little or no concern about environmental issues. Because 

Korea has gradually restored the Local Autonomy System due to democratization since the late 

1980s, large local governments such as Seoul and Taejon have enacted their own ordinances for 

environmental preservation since the mid 1990s. Unlike Japan and Korea, China has adopted 

the Democratic Centralized System based on her socialist constitution, and the local people’s 

governments have had very limited autonomy. For this reason, the central people’s government 

has dominated environmental protection activities. However, the Environmental Protection Law 

of 1989 requires that the local people’s governments accept responsibility for maintenance of 

environmental quality. In the near future, the role of local governments in China will also 

become important. Such difference in the role of local governments in the field of environmental 

policy reflects the political regimes of these three countries, which were a democratic regime in 

Japan, an authoritarian regime in Korea, and a socialist regime in China. 

2) Progressive Period 

In Japan, the citizens’ movements against pollution and development projects, represented 

in cases such as the Honshu-seishi Incident of 1958, have had a strong influence on 

environmental policy development. The Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control of 1967 

was enacted in response to public pressures, and the Environmental White Paper for 

environmental information disclosure has been published annually since 1969. Unlike Japan, the 

Korean government, at one time, regarded anti-pollution movements as anti-government 

movements, such as the Ulasn case during the late 1960s. Moreover, the government had 

strictly limited free speech and press. Since the early 1980s, environmental information 

disclosure has gradually been promoted. Since democratization in the late 1980s, campaigns in 

the mass media for environmental preservation have also become more prominent. In China, 

under the rule of Mao Zedong, information disclosure about both the state of the environment 

and the public reaction against pollution was very limited. However, as a part of the policy 

reform since 1978, environmental policy also has progressed. Since 1990, the Chinese 

government has published annual environmental reports. Thus, environmental policy in both 

Korea and China had developed, with respect to the level of environmental information 

disclosure that had been more limited compared to Japan’s experience. 

3) Consol idation Period 

It is important to note Japan’s success in pollution control. Japan, as mentioned above, 

adopted almost complete anti-pollution measures in this period. On the other hand, China was 

13

confronted with the scarcity of funds and technology for environmental protection despite 

environmental legislation that had been established systematically. In Korea, even after 

consolidating environmental policy, several pollution-related incidents still tok place, such as the 

phenol discharge incident at the Nak Dong River in 1991 and the citizens’ protest against 

reclaimed land for waste disposal at Kim Po in 1993. 

Such different degrees of policy implementation were caused by several factors. Pressure 

from foreign countries, especially from USA, has influenced Japanese environmental policy 

development. Examples include the improvement of Sumida River’s water quality just before the 

Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964, the regulation on exhaust gases in the USA’s Muskie Act of 

1970, and the criticism of Japanese pollution-dumping in the U.S. President’s statement in 

1970. Another crucial factor is the function of market mechanism. Faced with the regulation of 

exhaust gases by the Muskie Act in USA and the Oil Crisis in the 1970s, each Japanese 

automobile manufacturer was forced to develop new energy-saving and environmentally sound 

technologies, so as to compete with other automobile makers. As a result, advanced energysaving 

and environmentally sound technologies have been developed by Japanese automobile 

manufactures. Such influence from international pressure and function of market mechanism are 

significant factors for environmental policy development. 

In contrast to Japan’s experience, the Chinese government, under the Mao’s rule, insisted 

that the fundamental cause of Environmental pollution lay in capitalist countries, and pressure 

from foreign countries had little influence on China’s policy development. Moreover, Chinese 

environmental policy development occurred within a planned economy, and the influence of 

market competitiveness was negligible. Therefore, both investment and technological 

development for environmental protection by enterprises have not been promoted. Under the 

transition from a planned economy to a market economy since the mid 1980s, a market 

economy system has gradually been adopted such as the energy pricing reform. 

Korea also reduced air pollution in Seoul, just before the Seoul Olympic Games in 1988, as 

did Japan prior to the Tokyo Olympic Games. In near future, the Korean government will be 

required to respond to global environmental issues equal to developed countries as a member 

nation of OECD. On the other hand, several “Chaebols (combines)” have essentially had a 

monopoly on markets in the Korean economy. Monopolistic companies in the domestic market 

have not had much incentives to address pollution issues to compete with others. Thus, market 

conditions in Korea are quite different from the Japanese case. 

In both case of Korea and China, environmental policy was initiated relatively later when 

compared to Japan and other developed countries. Therefore, these two countries as latecomers 

have had the opportunity to learn from other counties’ experiences. In Korea, the Pollution 

Prevention Act of 1963 was modeled on Japanese legislation. Ever since, the Korean 

14

government has sought to examine the experience in other countries, especially in Japan and 

USA. Under the influence of arguments within Japan and USA, Korea adopted advanced policy 

responses such as guaranteeing in the 1980 Constitution the right to environment and creating 

an environmental impact assessment system in 1982. In China, the Environmental Protection 

Law (in Trail Implementation) of 1979 also provided several advanced policy responses such as 

pollution discharge fee system and environmental impact assessment system similar to those 

adopted in developed countries. At present time, the opportunities for China to learn from other 

countries remain high. 

4) Focus -shi ft Period 

The Japanese government, after overcoming industrial pollution by the mid 1970s, 

addressed issues related to the pursuit of quality of life (“Amenity“). However, environmental 

policy development in Japan slowed down by the early 1980s. Since the mid 1980s, global 

environmental issues have received much attention as a part of the policy agenda. In Korea, 

pollution control has not produced satisfactory results when compared to the Japanese case. The 

Korean government has had to address many environmental issues, such as pollution control, 

improvement of the quality of life, and global environmental issues at the same time. So far, 

Chinese environmental policy has arguably achieved few good results. While environmental 

issues in China is about to fall into crisis, foreign countries expect China to adopt appropriate 


To sum up the above differences among these three countries, six factors - Role of Local 

Government, Information Disclosure, Influence from International Pressure, Latecomer, Function 

of Market Mechanism, and Environmental Issues in the Policy Agenda - are of most significance 

for environmental policy development. These differences caused by these factors are 

summarized in Table 2. 

5.Relationship between Economic Growth and Environmental Policy 

5-1 National Experience 

Figure 3 - Figure 9 show rate of economic growth, GDP per capita at 1985 PPPs 

(Purchasing Power Parities), energy consumption per capita, energy intensity of GDP (energy 

consumption per GDP), and structural change (sectoral distribution of GDP) in each country. 

The PPPs here are based on the “Penn World Tables (Mark 5.6)” (see Summers and 

Heston,1991). 

1) Japan 

GDP per capita in Japan had fractionally increased since the mid 1950s just after 

environmental policy in Japan was initiated, during when annual rate of economic growth had 

15

een nearly 10%. At that time, moreover, production in industrial sector exceeded that in 

agricultural sector. And energy intensity of GDP also showed the tendency to increase, which 

implies that energy efficiency became worse. It should here be noted that energy intensity of 

GDP, in general, should decrease because of technological improvement, except in the case of 

extraordinary economic or political conditions. This period coincided with the period that 

pollution spread across the nation such as Yokkaichi Athma and pollution control measures 

progressed in a fragmented manner. 

In 1970, energy intensity of GDP reached a peak. This was soon after enacting the Basic Law 

for Environmental Pollution Control of 1967. Then Japanese economic growth became stable 

because of the Oil Crisis in 1973. Corresponding to this, both GDP per capita and energy 

consumption per capita leveled off. Energy intensity of GDP also had dramatically decreased 

since 1973. In this period, Japan’s pollution control measures almost completed. 

Since the mid 1970s, annual rate of economic growth has ranged from 3% to 5%. While 

GDP per capita has moderately increased during stable economic growth, energy consumption 

per capita has still remained flat. Such disparity showed that, keeping the level of energy 

consumption, a living standard in Japan has been improved due to effectiveness of pollution 

control measures. Then the improvement of quality of life has received much attention as the 

policy agenda since then. 

2) Korea 

Environmental policy in Korea initiated in the early 1960s, then annual rate of economic 

growth was more over 10% in the mid 1960s. During rapid economic growth, production in 

industrial sector exceeded that in agricultural sector in 1974. Energy intensity of GDP had 

increased since the same year. At that time, pollution became obvious across the nation, such as 

red tide in the Chi Nhe Bay in 1972 and water pollution in the Kwang Yang Bay in 1977. 

Even though Korean economy temporarily slowed down because of the President Park’s 

death in 1979, it immediately recovered by 1981. Then energy intensity of GDP reached a peak 

in 1980. This was soon after enacting the Environment Preservation Law of 1977. Since then, 

while both GDP per capita and energy consumption per capita continued to rapidly increase by 

1988 when the Seoul Olympic Games was held, energy intensity of GDP had decreased since 

1981. In this period, just before the Seoul Olympic Games, Korea had improved the air pollution 

in Seoul by various measures such as supply lower sulfur content oil, strengthened vehicle 

emission standards, and requirement to supply and use of clean fuels. 

Since the late 1980s, economic growth in Korea became stable. Then the policy agenda of 

environmental policy in Korea has shifted to new issues such as improvement of quality of life. 

Nonetheless, since 1989, energy intensity of GDP has increased again. This endorses that, unlike 

16

Japan’s experience, pollution control in Korea has not produced satisfactory results. 

3) China 

In the 1960s, economic growth in China was fluctuating due to political disorder such as the 

Strategy of the Great Leap Forward in 1958-1961 and the Great Cultural Revolution in 1966- 

1976. In the Great Cultural Revolution era, energy intensity of GDP had extraordinarily 

increased. In the early 1970s, the significant pollution such as water pollution in the Dalian Bay 

and the Guanting Reservoir occurred, and the Chinese government became aware of 

environmental issues. 

Since 1977, annual rate of economic growth had been more than 8%. Moreover, production 

in industrial sector exceeded that in agricultural sector in 1977. Since 1978, China has launched 

the Policy of Reforming and Opening up to the Outside World, and public policies in all sorts of 

fields have progressed. In the field of environmental policy as a part of these policy reform, the 

Environmental Protection Law (in Trail Implementation) was enacted in 1979. While both GDP 

per capita and energy consumption per capita had increased, energy intensity of GDP had 

decreased due to such policy progresses. 

In the 1980s, Chinese economy continued to rapid growth. Since 1986, the trend of energy 

intensity of GDP has turned to increase, and the state of environment in China has become 

serious due to economic growth and population increase. In response to this, environmental 

policy in China has been consolidated through establishing the National Environmental 

Protection Agency in 1988 and enacting the Environmental Protection Law of 1989. The current 

trend of energy intensity of GDP, however, endorses that China’s environmental policy has 

achieved few good results because of the scarcity of funds and technology for environmental 

protection. 

5-2 Comparative Analysis 

The above national experiences illustrate the similar pattern of relationship between 

environmental policy development and variation of key economic indicators in these three 

countries. At initial stage, environmental policy in each country began just before the period of 

rapid economic growth and industrialization. Subsequently, rapid economic growth began, and 

production in industrial sector exceeded that in agricultural sector. During these periods, 

environmental policy progressed in a sectoral manner. At the next stage, energy consumption 

increased in parallel with economic growth, and energy efficiency became worse. In these 

conditions, the government adopted a comprehensive approach to environmental policy, by 

consolidating administrative powers and responsibilities and enacting basic law for 

environmental policy. After that, energy efficiency gradually improved. Additionally, under the 

conditions that economic growth and industrialization slowed down, public concern shifted to 

17

new environmental issues in the policy agenda. 

Next argument deals with the tempo of both environmental policy development and 

economic growth. From both Figure 3 and Figure 4, the level of economic growth in China in 

1992 is equal to that in Japan in the early 1950s, and that in Korea in 1992 is equal to that in 

Japan in 1971. That is to say, the time-lag for economic growth between Japan and China is 

more than 35 years, and between Japan and Korea is 21 years. On the other hand, as the above 

mentioned, the time-lag for environmental policy development between Japan and China is 21- 

24 years, and between Japan and Korea is 12-14 years (see Table 3). It is, through comparison 

of both time-lags, found that the tempo of environmental policy development in China and 

Korea has been faster than that of Japan, when compared to each country’s level of economic 

growth. In other words, the gap between economic growth and environmental policy 

development can be found in Korea and China. 

Moreover, Table 4 shows both GDP per capita and energy consumption per capita in the 

starting year of each policy development stage on each country. Compared to Japan, income 

level in both Korea and China are lower, despite at the same period of environmental policy 

development. Concretely, the income level of Korea is nearly 70-80% of Japan, and that of 

China is less than half of Japan. These disparities in income level also endorse the above gap 

between economic growth and environmental policy development. 

6. Conclusion and Prospects 

6-1 Similarities and Di fferences 

In concluding, the similarities and differences in environmental policy development in the 

three countries of Japan, Korea, and China, are summarized as follows. 

First, the environmental policy development processes in China and Korea were quite similar 

to that of Japan, except for a certain time-lag. This time-lag between Japan and China is 21-24 

years, and between Japan and Korea is 12-14 years. Environmental policies in these three 

countries, in long run, have been converging. 

Second, the environmental policy development processes in these three countries were 

closely related to each country’s economic growth. However, when compared to Japan, the 

tempo of environmental policy development in China and Korea has been faster than that of 

their economic growth. 

Third, the major differences identified in these processes were caused by several factors. In 

both Korea and China, local governments in particular have played only a small role in the field 

of environmental policy, and the level of environmental information disclosure was more limited 

18

compared to Japan. Moreover, the measures for environmental conservation through the market 

mechanism in Korea and China were weaker than in Japan. 

Fourth, even though the details were different in each case, international influence caused 

by pressure from foreign countries or latecomer in the field of the environmental policy have 

contributed to environmental policy development in these three countries. 

Fifth, China and Korea, in a relatively short period, have had to address many environmental 

issues which took up to 40 years for Japan to resolve, such as pollution control, improvement of 

quality of life and consideration of global environmental issues. 

6-2 Pros pects 

Are the above findings applicable to other countries, especially to other East Asian countries ? 

Because only three countries have been studied, definitive judgment can not be offered on the 

entire range of East Asian countries. Nonetheless, certain prospects emerge quite strongly. 

1) Convergence of Environment al Policy 

The most important finding that can be drawn from this study is the convergence of 

environmental policies in the three East Asian countries. Vogel states that the most important 

conclusion of the comparative environmental policy literature of the 1970s-1980s is the contrast 

between the substantial differences in policy style across national boundaries and the relative 

similarity of regulatory outcome (Vogel,1987,p.156). He, however, does not take environmental 

policies in developing countries into consideration at all. Thus, it is of great significance here to 

find similarity of environmental policy outcome between developed country and developing 

countries. 

It seems reasonable to suppose that environmental policy outcomes, not only in these three 

studied countries but also in other East Asian countries, have converged due to the following 

several factors. First is scientific and technical uncertainties of environmental issues. In general, 

environmental policies have to be made under the conditions of extreme scientific and technical 

uncertainties. Because available scientific information and technologies are limited all over the 

world, if the government would seek to more advanced policy instruments, policy outcomes 

become to be similar each other. Second is flying-geese pattern of economic growth by East 

Asian countries. It is pointed out that East Asian countries resemble each other in respect of the 

pattern of their industrial development. The NIEs (Newly Industrializing Economies) countries 

have caught up with Japan, and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries 

are now catching up, followed by China (Ymazawa,1993, pp.24-27). As the above mentioned, 

the environmental policy development processes in Japan, Korea, and China were closely related 

to each country’s economic growth. In the same way as these three countries, economic growth 

in each East Asian country also has been accompanied by the surfacing of environmental issues 

19

through a similar pattern. Thus environmental policies of East Asian countries, in turn, have 

developed in the similar pattern. Third is the current wave of economic and political transition in 

East Asian region. This paper shows major differences among Japan, Korea, and China, which 

are reflection of differences of economic structure and/or political regime, such as role of local 

government, information disclosure, function of market mechanism. The transition from a 

planned economy to a market economy in China since the mid 1980s and political 

democratization in Korea since the late 1980s are forerunners of such waves. These transition in 

both China and Korea has been making for the direction of removing the differences from 

Japan. Even though the progresses of transition varies, such transition will force environmental 

policy in other East Asian countries to develop in convergence. 

2) Gap Be tween Economic Growth and Environment al Policy Development 

The tempo of environmental policy development in China and Korea, as the above 

mentioned, has been faster than that of Japan. It seems that such gap between economic 

growth and environmental policy development can be found in other East Asian countries. 

Furthermore, the later the initiation of environmental policy, the more the gap widens. 

O’Connor, analyzing the environmental management of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and 

Indonesia, also examines that latecomers like Indonesia and Thailand appear to have taken 

major environmental policy initiatives at an earlier stage in their economic development than 

Korea and Taiwan, and the latter two at an earlier stage than Japan (O’Connor,1994,p.34). 

The factors that created such gaps are not only international influence but also each 

country’s domestic political regime. O’Connor states that, for a variety of reasons (including 

learning from experience, increased availability of technology, lower unit abatement costs, and 

increased exposure to international environmental pressures), late industrialisers are in a 

position to move faster to close the environmental performance gap than early industrialisers 

were (O’Connor,1994,p.35). Thus, he emphasizes that the gaps caused by international 

influence on domestic policy making. In my view, in addition, non-democratic political regimes 

in many East Asian countries like as China and former Korea, have also contributed to develop 

faster the institutional aspects of environmental policy. Huntington examines, “in 1990 the East 

Asia dominant-party systems covered a continuum between democracy and authoritarianism, 

with Japan at one extreme, Indonesia at the other, and Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Singapore 

in between, more or less in that order (Huntington,1991.p.305).” Under the non-democratic 

regime, it is relatively easy for political leaders or policy makers, taking international concern on 

environmental issues into account, to formulate their preferable policies when compared to the 

case of democratic countries, because of the centralization of administrative powers and limited 

information disclosure for citizens. It, however, should be noted here that any policies not based 

on public consensus have not necessary been generally accepted and achieved good results. 

20

3) Increasing Int ernational Inf luence on Environment al Policy Development 

Porter and Brown write, “underneath the fluctuations of electoral politics and economic 

cycle, there is an inexorable evolution in international relations toward more effective 

cooperation on global environmental threats (Porter and Brown,1996,p.177).” It is obvious 

that, as such inexorable evolution, international influence on environmental policy development, 

especially in developing countries, will increase more and more in the future. 

As increasing the international influence, the development pattern of environmental policy 

shown in developed countries’ experiences is likely to be shortened or changed the shape in 

developing countries. The shortening or changing the shape of development pattern depends 

on the “leapfrog” on environmental policies in developing countries. Above all, because both 

multilateral and national development assistance agencies have had great concern with 

environmental issues in developing countries recently, recipient countries will have a lot of 

opportunities to learn from developed countries’ experiences, and the “leapfrog” will be 

accelerated through international development assistance programs. The evaluation on leapfrog 

on environmental policies in developing countries will be increasingly important. 

The “leapfrog” on environmental policies do not always have a useful influence on 

environmental policy in developing countries. It accelerates the tempo of environmental policy 

development, and forces the gap between economic growth and environmental policy 

development to widen than ever in developing countries. For this reason, the scarcity of funds 

and technology for environmental conservation is likely to be more serious. Moreover, in these 

conditions, environmental policy in developing countries does not benefit from economic 

growth as did the developed countries so (World Bank,1992,pp.39-40). In short, there are some 

potentialities that the leapfrog harms policy effectiveness in developing countries. 

Accordingly, developed countries should, through multiple-level cooperation - national 

government, local governments, companies, and citizens -, appeal to developing countries to 

make good use of their experiences on environmental policy in a way to adaptable to the tempo 

of each country’s economic growth, and assist to bridge the gap between economic growth and 

environmental policy development in developing countries. 

21

References 

Agency of Natural Resource and Energy, Japan (ed.) (1995), Sogo Energy Tokei: Heisei 7 Nendo 

(Comprehensive Energy Statistics: 1995 Fiscal Year), Tsusyosangyo Kenkyusya, Tokyo. 

Economic Planning Administration, Republic of Korea (ed.) (1982), Major Statistics of Korean 

Economy 1982, Economic Planning Administration, Seoul. 

Economic Planning Agency, Japan (ed.) (1995), Keizai Hakusyo: Heisei 7 Nendo (Economic White 

Paper: 1995 Fiscal Year), Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Tokyo. 

Hao Y (1992), Environmental Protection in Chinese Foreign Policy, Journal of Northeast Asian 

Studies 11(3): 25-46. 

Harashima Y (1995), A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Policy Development Processes in 

East Asian Countries (in Japanese). In: Society of Environmental Science (ed.), 1995 Nenkai 

Koen Yoshisyu (Collection of Discussion Papers in 1995 Annual Meeting), Society of 

Environmental Science, Tsukuba, p.35. 

Harashima Y and Morita T (1995), A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Policy Development 

Processes in East Asian Countries (in Japanese), Keikaku Gyosei (Planning Administration) 

18(3): 73-85. 

Harashima Y (1996), A Comparative Study of Environmental Policy Development Processes in East 

Asian Countries (in Japanese). In: Society of Environmental Science (ed.), 1996 Nenkai Koen 

Yoshisyu (Collection of Discussion Papers in 1996 Annual Meeting), Society of Environmental 

Science, Tsukuba, p.176-177. 

Hishida K (1986), The Current State of Environmental Problems in China (in Japanese), Sangyo 

Kogai (Industrial Pollution) 22(7): 14-23. 

Huntington S (1991), The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, University 

of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Imura H and Katsuhara T (eds.) (1995), Higashi Asia no Kogyoka to Kankyo Mondai 

(Industrialization and Environmental Problems in East Asia), Kokusai Higashi Asia Kenkyu 

Centre, Kita-kyusyu. 

Kato K (1996), Legal Frameworks for Environmental Governance in East and Southeast Asian 

Countries (East-West Center Working Paper), East-West Center, Honolulu. 

Kojima R and Fujisaki S (eds.) (1993), Kankyo to Kaihatsu: Higashi Asia no Keiken (Environment 

and Development: the East Asian Experiences), Asia Keizai Kenkyuujyo, Tokyo. 

22

Koo Y (1979), Legal Aspects of Environmental Protection in Korea, Korean Journal of Comparative 

Law 7: 1-59. 

Korea Energy Economic Institute (1992), 1992 Yearbook of Energy Statistics, Korea Energy 

Economic Institute, Seoul. 

Korea Energy Economic Institute (1994), 1994 Yearbook of Energy Statistics, Korea Energy 

Economic Institute, Seoul. 

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (1993), A Study in Sino-Korean Environmental 

Cooperation (in Korean), Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Seoul. 

Lee J, Harashima Y, Lee D, and Morita T (1995), A Comparative Analysis of Processes Used in 

Developing Environmental Policies in Japan and Korea (in Japanese), Kankyo Kagaku 

(Environmental Science) 8(2): 181-192. 

Levine M, Liu F, and Sinton J (1992), China’s Energy System: Historical Evolution, Current Issues, 

and Prospects, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 17: 405-435. 

Ministry of Environment,Republic of Korea (1992), National Report of the Republic of Korea to 

UNCED, Seoul. 

Morishima A (1981), Japanese Environmental Policy and Law. In: Kato I, Kumamoto N, and 

Matthews W (eds.), Environmental Law and Policy in the Pacific Basin Area, University of 

Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp.77-84. 

National Statistical Office, Republic of Korea (ed.) (1996), Major Statistics of Korean Economy 

1996, National Statistical Office, Seoul. 

O’Connor D (1994), Managing the Environment with Rapid Industrialization: Lessons from the East 

Asian Experience, OECD, Paris. 

OECD (1977), Environmental Policies in Japan, OECD, Paris. 

Pearce D, Markandya A, and Barbier E (1991), Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan, London. 

People’s Republic of China (1992), National Report of the People’s Republic of China on 

Environment and Development, China Environmental Science Press, Beijing. 

Porter G and Brown J (1996), Global Environmental Politics (Second Edition), Westview Press, 

Boulder. 

Qu G (1990), China’s Environmental Policy and World Environmental Problems, International 

23

Environmental Affairs 2(2): 103-108. 

Qu G (1991), Environmental Management in China, UNEP/China Environmental Science Press, 

Beijing. 

Siml V (1993), China’s Environmental Crisis: an Inquiry into the Limits of National Development, 

M.E.Sharp Inc., Armonk. 

Summers R and Heston A (1991), The Penn World Table (Mark5): an Expanded Set of International 

Comparison 1950-1988, Quarterly Journal Economics May 1991: 327-368. 

State of Statistical Bureau, People’s Republic of China (ed.) (1992), China Statistical Yearbook 

1992, China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing. 

State of Statistical Bureau, People’s Republic of China (ed.) (1995), China Statistical Yearbook 

1995, China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing. 

Vogel D (1987), The Comparative Study of Environmental Policy: A Review of the Literature. In: 

Dierkes M, Weiler H, and Antal A (eds.), Comparative Policy Research: Learning from 

Experience, Gower Publishing Company, Hants, pp.99-169. 

Toyo-Keizai (ed.) (1991), Kanketsu Syowa Kokusei Soran: Dai 1 Kan (Statistics of the State of a 

Country in Syowa Era: Vol.1), Toyo-Keizai, Tokyo. 

Wakabayashi K (1989), Chugoku no Jinko Mondai (Population Problems in China), University of 

Tokyo Press, Tokyo. 

World Bank (1992), World Development Report 1992, Oxford University Press, New York. 

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford 

University Press, London. 

Yamazawa I (1993), Transmission of Industrial Development and International Industrial 

Adjustment, Keizai Bunseki (Economic Analysis) 129: 14-36. 

Zhang K and Jin R (eds.) (1992), A Course in China’s Environmental Protection Law, Tsinghua 

University Press, Beijing. 

24

List of Tables and Figures 

Table 1 Comparative Chronological Table 

Table 2 Differences in Environmental Policy Development 

Table 3 Comparison of Time-lags 

Table 4 Economic Indicators on Each Stage of Environmental Policy Development 

Figure 1 Analytical Framework 

Figure 2 Development Stages of Environmental Policy 

Figure 3 Rate of Economic Growth 

Figure 4 GDP per Capita at 1985 PPPs 

Figure 5 Energy Consumption per Capita 

Figure 6 Energy Intensity of GDP 

Figure 7 Structural Change in Japan 

Figure 8 Structural Change in Korea 

Figure 9 Structural Change in China 

25

Table 1 Comparative Chronological Table 

Year Japan Korea China 

Tokyo Prefectural Ordinance for Factory Pollution Control(1949) 

1950 Korean War(1950-1953) 

Kanagawa Prefectural Ordinance for Works Pollution Control(1951) 

1955 

Osaka Prefectural Ordinance for Works Pollution Control(1954) 

Minamata Disease(1956) 

Itai-itai Disease(1957) 

Honsyu-seishi Incident, Laws for Water Quality Preservation(1958) 

Provisional Sanitary Criteria for Design of Industrial Enterprises(1956) 

Provisional Outline for Water and Soil Conservation(1957) 

1960 Yokkaichi Asthma(1961) 

Law for Smoke Regulation(1962) 

Public Movement in Numazu, Mishima and Shimizu(1964) 

Pollution Prevention Act(1963) 

Pollution Control Division in the Ministry of Health and Welfare(1964) 

1965 Red Tide in Many Parts of the Country(1965) 

Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control(1967) 

Great Cultural Revolution(1966-1976) 

Law for Air Pollution Prevention(1968) 

Measures to Lower Sulfur Content of Fuel(1969) 

Pollution Damages in the Ulsan Industrial Area(1967) 

Environmental White Paper(1969) 

Environmental Quality Standard for Water Quality(1970) 

1970 Photochemical-smog in Tokyo(1970) Pollution Control Division in the Ministry of 

Pollution Diet(1970) 

Public Health and Social Affairs(1970) 

Environment Agency(1971) Red Tide in the Chi Nhe Bay(1972) Water Pollution in the Dalian Bay and the Guanting Reservoir(1972) 

Law for Natural Environment Conservation(1972) Health Injuries in the Kwang Yang Bay(1977) First National Conference on Environmental Protection(1973) 

Judicial Decision on Yokkaichi Asthma Case(1972) Environment Preservation Act(1977) Environmental Protection Leading Group of the State Council(1974) 

1975 Law concerning Compensation for Pollution Related Health Damage(1973) Collective Protect against the Nak Dong River Dam(1978) 

Strengthening Regulation on Exhaust Gases(1976) 

Water Quality Standards(1978) 

Kawasaki Municipal Ordinance for Environmental Impact Assessment(1976) Charter of Natural Conservation(1978) Environmental Protection Law(in Trial Implementation)(1979) 

Environmental Performance Review by OECD(1977) SO 2 Standard for the Air Quality(1979) Administration of Environmental Protection in the Ministry 

Serious Air Pollution in Seoul(1979) 

of Urban Construction and Environmental Protection(1982) 

1980 Environment Administration(sub-cabinet level)(1980) Environmental Standard for Air Pollution(1982) 

Plan for Supply Lower Sulfur Content Oil(1981) 

Marine Environmental Protection Law(1982) 

Environmental Impact Assessment(1982) 

Second National Conference on Environmental Protection(1983) 

Abolishment of Bill for Environmental Impact Assessment(1983) Environmental White Paper(1982) Regulations on Integrating Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control 

Cabinet’s Resolution about Environmental Impact Assessment(1984) Emission Charge System(1983) with Technological Renovation(1983) 

1985 Pollution Disease in the Onsan Industrial Area(1985) Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law(1984) 

Judicial Decision on Chi Nhe Chemical Co. Case(1985) 

Environmental Protection Commission in the State Council(1984) 

Waste Management Act(1986) 

Deregulation of Population Movement(1984) 

Strengthening Vehicle Emission Standards(1987) 

Energy Pricing Reform(1985) 

Council of Ministerial Level for Global Environment Issues(1989) Requirement to Supply and Use Clean Fuels(1988) China Conservation Strategy(1986) 

1990 Environment Agency(cabinet level)(1990) Air Pollution Prevention and Control Law(1987) 

Basic Environmental Policy Act(1990) 

Environmental Standard for Surface Water Quality(1988) 

Natural Environment Preservation Act(1991) 

National Environmental Protection Agency in the State Council(1988) 

Basic Environment Law(1993) Phenol Discharge Incident at the Nak Dong River(1991) Environmental Protection Law(1989) 

Basic Environment Plan(1994) Protest against Reclaimed Land for Waste Disposal at Kim Po(1993) Red Tide in the Dong Hai Sea(1990) 

1995 Environmental Impact Assessment Act(1993) Official Report on the State of the Environment in China(1990) 

Ministry of Environment(1994) 

Measures to Reduce the Sulfur and Ash Content of Coal(1995) 

Solid Waste Pollution Prevention and Control Law(1995) 

26

Table 2 Differences in Environmental Policy Development 

Role of Local Government 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

Japan 

Korea 

Local governments initiated environmental policy beginning with the Tokyo Prefectural Ordinance for 

Pollution Control of 1949. Subsequently, local governments adopted several advanced policy 

instruments such as environmental impact assessment in advance of the central government. Such local 

governments’ initiatives were possible because of the Local Autonomy System provided in the 1946 

Constitution. 

In the President Park Chung-Hee era, Korea centralized her administrative power, and the central 

government played the main role in environmental preservation. Until quite recently, local governments 

showed little or no concern about environmental issues. Because Korea has gradually restored the Local 

Autonomy System due to democratization since the late 1980s, large local governments such as Seoul 

and Taejon have enacted their own ordinances for environmental preservation since the mid 1990s. 

China has adopted the Democratic Centralized System based on her socialist constitution, and local 

governments have had very limited autonomy. For this reason, the central people’s government has 

dominated environmental protection activities. However, the Environmental Protection Law of 1989 

requires that local people’s governments accept responsibility for maintenance environment quality. In 

near future, the role of local governments will become important. 

Information Disclosure 

The citizens’ movements against pollution, represented in cases such as the Honshu- seishi Incident of 

1958, have had a strong influence on environmental policy development. In 1967 the Basic Law for 

Pollution Control was enacted in response to public pressures, and the Environmental White Paper for 

environmental information disclosure has been published annually since 1969. 

The Korean government, at one time, regarded anti-pollution movements as anti-government 

movements, such as the case of pollution damages in the Ulsan industrial area during the late 1960s. 

Since the early 1980s, environmental information disclosure has gradually been promoted. Since 

democratization in the late 1980s, campaigns in the mass media for environmental preservation have 

become prominent. 

Under the rule of Mao Zedong, information disclosure about both the state of environment and the 

public reaction against pollution was very limited. However, as a part of the policy reform since 1978, 

environmental policy has progressed. Since 1990, the Chinese government has published annual 

environmental reports. 

Influence from International Pressure 

Pressure from foreign countries, especially from USA, has influenced Japanese environmental policy 

development. Examples of this include the improvement of Sumida River’s water quality just before the 

Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964, the regulation on exhaust gases in the USA’s Muskie Act of 1970, and 

the criticism of Japanese pollution dumping in the U.S. President’s statement in 1970. 

Korea also reduced the air pollution in Seoul, just before the Seoul Olympic Games in 1988. In near 

future, the Korean government will be required to response to global environmental issues equal to 

developed countries as a member nation of OECD. 

27

China 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

Japan 

Korea 

Under the Mao’s rule, the Chinese government insisted that the fundamental cause of Environmental 

pollution lay in Capitalist countries, and pressure from foreign countries had little influence on China’s 

policy development. However, recently, because of the scarcity of funds and technology for 

environmental protection, the Chinese government has adopted a very positive stance on 

environmental diplomacy. 

Latecomer 

Japan has had a few opportunities to learn from the experiences in other countries in the field of 

environmental policy, because Japanese environmental policy was initiated relatively early in the world. 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1963 was modeled on Japanese legislation. Ever since, the Korean 

government has sought to examine the experience in other countries, especially in Japan and USA. 

Under the influence of arguments within Japan and USA, Korea adopted advanced policy responses 

such as guaranteeing in the 1980 Constitution the right to environment and creating environmental 

impact assessment system in 1982. 

The Environmental Protection Law (in Trial Implementation) of 1979 provided several advanced policy 

responses such as pollution discharge fee system and environmental impact assessment system 

similar to those adopted in developed countries. However, the opportunities for China to learn from 

other countries remain high. 

Function of the Market Mechanism 

Faced with the regulation of exhaust gases by the USA’s Muskie Act in 1970 and the Oil Crisis in the 

1970s, each Japanese automobile manufacturer was forced to develop new energy-saving and 

environmentally sound technologies, so as to compete with other automobile makers. As a result, 

advanced energy-saving and environmentally sound technologies have been developed by Japanese 

automobile manufacturers. 

Several “Chaebols” have essentially had a monopoly on markets in the Korean economy. Monopolistic 

companies in domestic market have not had much incentives to address pollution issues to compete 

with others. Thus, market conditions in Korea are quite different from the Japanese case. 

China 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

Chinese environmental policy development occurred within a planned economy, and the influence of 

market competitiveness was negligible. Therefore, both investment and technological development for 

environmental protection by enterprises have not been promoted. Under the transition from a planned 

economy to a market economy since the mid 1980s, a market economy system has gradually been 

adopted such as energy pricing reform. 

Environmental Issues in the Policy Agenda 

After overcoming industrial pollution by the mid 1970s, the Japanese government addressed issues 

related to the pursuit of quality of life (“Amenity”). However, environmental policy development in 

Japan slowed down by the early 1980s. Since the mid 1980s, global environmental issues have 

received much attention as part of the policy agenda. 

Pollution control in Korea has not produced satisfactory results when compared to the Japanese case. 

The Korean government has had to address many environmental issues, such as pollution control, 

improvement of the quality of life, and global environmental issues at the same time. 

So far, Chinese environmental policies has arguably achieved few good results. While environmental 

issue in China is about to falling into crisis, foreign countries expect that China adopts appropriate 


28

Table 3 Comparison of Time-lags 

Economic Growth Environmental Policy Development 

Between Japan and Korea 21 12-14 

Between Japan and China more than 35 21-24 

*years 

*Time-lags of economic growth are based on GDP per capi ta at 1985 PPPs. 

Table 4 Economic Indicators on Each Stage of Environmental Policy Development 

Japan Korea China 

Starting Year of Progressive Period 1955 1970 1977 

GDP per Capita 2,087 1,701(81%) 762(37%) 

Energy Consumption per Capita 721 610(87%) 386(53%) 

Starting Year of Consolidation Period 1965 1980 1989 

GDP per Capita 4,481 3,130(69%) 1,352(25%) 

Energy Consumption per Capita 1,550 1,152(74%) 602(38%) 

Starting Year of Focus-Shift Period 1975 1990 - 

GDP per Capita 8,249 6,779(82%) - 

Energy Consumption per Capita 3,068 2,174(71%) - 

*GDP per Capita = $ at 1985 PPPs, Energy Consumption per Capita = kg. oil equivalent 

*Percentages reported within parenthesis are X/Japan. 

29

1.National Experience 

(1) Events of Environmental Policy Development and Respective 

Socio-political Background 

(2) Division of Development Stages 

2.Comparative Analysis on Environmental Policy Development 

DDevelopment 

(1) Similarities and Time-lags 

(2) Comparison of Characteristics in Each Country 

3.Examination of Economic Growth 

(1) National Experience 

(2) Comparison of Relationship between Economic 

Growth GGrwoth and GrowGGrowth Environmental andEnvironmental 

Policy Development 

4.Conclusion and Prospects 

Figure 1 Analytical Framework 

30

Year 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 

Tokyo Prefectural Ordinance for Factory Pollution Control 

Two Laws for Water Quality Preservation 

Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control 

Environmental Performance Review by OECD 

Abolishment of Bill for EIA 

Basic Environmental Law 

Japan 

Pollution Prevention Act 

Pollution Control Division in the Ministry of Public Health and Social Affairs 

Environment Administration Seoul Olympic Games 

Korea 

First National Conference on Environmental Protection 

Environmental Protection Law(in Trial Implementation) 

Environmental Protection Law 

China 

*Development Stage, Initial Period, Progressive Period, Consolidation Period, Focus-shift Period. 

Figure 2 Development Stages of Environmental Policy 

31

20 

% 

15 

10 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

5 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: Economic Planning Administration,1982; Korea Energy Economic Institute,1992; State of Statistical Bureau,1992; 

Economic Planning Agency,1995; State of Statistical Bureau,1995; National Statistical Office,1996. 

Figure 3 Rate of Economic Growth 

32

16,000 

$ at 1985 PPPs 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: Penn World Tables (Mark 5.6); Economic Planning Administration,1982; Korea Energy Economic Institute,1992; 

State of Statistical Bureau,1992; Economic Planning Agency,1995; State of Statistical Bureau,1995; National Statistical 

Office,1996. 

Figure 4 GDP per Capita at 1985 PPPs 

33

4,000 

kg.oil equivalent 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

1,000 

500 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: Korea Energy Economic Institute,1992; State of Statistical Bureau,1992; Korea Energy Economic Institute,1994; 

Agency of Natural Resource and Energy,1995; State of Statistical Bureau,1995. 

Figure 5 Energy Consumption per Capita 

34

550 

TOE/M$ at 1985 PPPs 

500 

450 

400 

Japan 

Korea 

China 

350 

300 

250 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: Penn World Tables (Mark 5.6); Economic Planning Administration,1982; Korea Energy Economic Institute,1992; 

State of Statistical Bureau,1992; Korea Energy Economic Institute,1994; Economic Planning Agency,1995; State of Statistical 

Bureau,1995; National Statistical Office,1996. 

Figure 6 Energy Intensity of GDP 

35

70 

% 

60 

50 

40 

30 

Agriculture 

Industry 

Services etc. 

20 

10 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: Toyo-Keizai,1991; Economic Planning Agency,1995. 

Figure 7 Structural Change in Japan 

36

70 

% 

60 

50 

40 

30 

Agriculture 

Industry 

Services etc. 

20 

10 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: Economic Planning Administration,1982; Korea Energy Economic Institute,1992; National Statistical Office,1996. 

Figure 8 Structural Change in Korea 

37

70 

% 

60 

50 

40 

30 

Agriculture 

Industry 

Services etc. 

20 

10 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Sources: State of Statistical Bureau,1992; State of Statistical Bureau,1995. 

Figure 9 Structural Change in China 

38

Untitled - UNU-IAS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?