[Korea Root] 'Geumryeok and Political Power'... The Market Economy of Joseon

Sijeon Merchants, "Market Order Disrupted... Songpajang Must Be Closed"
Songpa Merchants, "Closing Songpajang Will Make Songpajin Operation Difficult"
Regulatory Officials, 'Equity' and 'Fairness'... Debate Over Continuation

Commercial License of the Korean Empire issued in 1899 by Sangmusa (商務社) to peddlers nationwide [National Museum of Korea]

[Asia Economy Reporter Ra Young-cheol] The collusion between merchant forces and political power in the late Joseon period was an open secret.

Songpa merchants, who grew based on the southern Gyeonggi market, connected not only with Seoul merchants but also with merchants nationwide, representing the reality of the collusion between money and power in the Joseon era that challenged the sijon merchants.

In the 19th century, Songpajang finally established itself as a nationwide market where goods from the Samnam and northeastern regions were traded without passing through Seoul.

However, the Songpa merchant forces did not have an easy path to solidify their position as private merchant capitalists (sasangdogu, 私商都賈).

During the reign of King Yeongjo (1724?1776) in the mid-18th century, the market was once threatened with closure.

Some court officials argued for the abolition of Songpajang, claiming it disrupted market order.

Minister of War Hong Sang-han reported to the king: "Merchants based in Songpa collude with middlemen (jungdo-a, 中都兒) from Seoul and provinces, as well as with hawkers who engage in chaotic trading, to lure merchants from the Samnam and northern provinces to Songpajang. Seoul merchants who trade chaotically also avoid regulation by frequenting Songpajang. Although it is nominally held six times a month, in reality, various goods including those handled by the Seoul sijon are stored and traded daily. Because of this, markets in Seoul continue to suffer losses. If Songpajang is not abolished, there will be no way to conduct business in Seoul markets." - 『Bibyeonsa Deungnok』 Volume 128, Yeongjo 31st year (1755), January 16

High-ranking officials advocating for abolition cited that Songpajang was merely a periodic market in name but functioned like a permanent market, causing severe damage to Seoul merchants.

However, they did not openly protect the Seoul sijon. By stating that all markets in Seoul were suffering losses, they sought a broader and more general justification.

Many among them were current or former officials who also served as heads of the Pyeongsiseo (Office of Market Supervision), which managed the sijon operations. Their arguments essentially represented the interests of the sijon merchants.

Officials supporting the establishment of the market were mostly military officers, including the Gwangju yusu (governor) responsible for Songpa.

Some argued that Songpajin (Songpa Ferry) was a strategic point for Seoul's defense, and closing the market would disperse residents who depended on it for livelihood, causing difficulties in maintaining military and warehouse operations at Songpajin.

■ Debate over the Existence of Songpajang

Dongyeodo (東輿圖) - Doseongdo (都城圖) ＜1856~1872＞ [National Museum of Korea]

The debate largely boiled down to issues of fairness and equity. From the perspective of the state, both the Seoul sijon merchants and the Songpajang traders were the same people, so how could the livelihoods of rural people be prohibited just because Seoul citizens lose some profits?

Sajik (Minister of Rites) Han Ik-mo reported to the king: "The court forbids chaotic trading for the sake of the Seoul sijon, but poor people lose their livelihoods because of this, so I am not sure if this prohibition is ultimately beneficial. The goods sold at Songpajang come from all over the provinces. If Songpajang is to be abolished just because the sijon's profits decrease, then this rule should apply to all who trade goods within 100 ri of the capital, prohibiting commerce altogether. The problem with chaotic trading was the monopoly by market people, but if we treat Seoul and provinces equally, closing Songpajang cannot be considered necessarily justified." - 『Bibyeonsa Deungnok』 Volume 128, Yeongjo 31st year (1755), January 16

The heated debate over the existence of Songpajang was settled when King Yeongjo sided with those advocating for its continuation on the grounds of public welfare.

However, sijon merchants who did not give up their intention to abolish Songpajang appealed directly to the king in 1758.

The proposal was to close Songpajang but open a new market about 10 ri southeast from the current location.

The intention was to weaken Songpajang's influence by removing the market from its current strategic location along the Han River waterway and land transportation routes.

Peddler Accounting Documents [National Museum of Korea]

The court was divided again into pro and con factions, but the reasons and grounds for both sides were almost the same as before.

King Yeongjo once again sided with the proponents of continuation. Songpa was important as a military strategic rear base, and since all people, whether from Seoul or provinces, were subjects of the same kingdom, the continuation argument prevailed once more.

The debate over the existence of Songpajang ended with the victory of the continuation faction on the grounds of justification, but the commercial activities of the sasangdogu were closely linked to high-ranking officials and influential figures, just like the sijon merchants.

Political power often intervened unfairly in commerce, disrupting normal market order.

The encroachment by rulers and influential figures limited capital accumulation and hindered fair and rational commerce.

The resulting harm fell back on the people, amounting to exploitation.

Through the debate between court officials representing Songpa merchants and sijon merchants, Songpajang continued to grow and emerged as a leading force among the dogu (merchant capitalists).

Songpa merchants expanded their capital and distribution base, transforming into a commercial force comparable to the Kaesong merchants in northern Gyeonggi.

■ The Shadow Behind the Growth

Traditional Market in the 1960s [National Archives]

It is also true that behind the growth of the sasang forces, including Songpa and Kaesong merchants, in the late Joseon period, there was a dark shadow.

Monopolistic hoarding by the sasangdogu destabilized prices and obstructed the smooth supply of goods.

The blockage of normal product flow sometimes caused social unrest, and the damage was borne entirely by the people.

Moreover, most of the profits gained from hoarding were taken by the sasangdogu, the merchant capitalists.

While sasang resisted the sijon merchants' monopoly and fought for market rights, once they gained power, they also tried to maintain another monopoly system to extract excessive profits.

The collusion between sasang and political forces shook the solid sijon system but also weakened the self-sustaining power of sasang.

Merchant forces that grew relying on political power tend to seek political power first again when external threats arise.

Backroom deals with the ruling class distanced them from actual commercial policy work by political powers.

The immature response and resulting chaos shown by Joseon's merchant forces and political powers when foreign goods and capital flooded in after the opening of ports prove this.

The achievements of Kaesong and Songpa merchants, who created nationwide distribution networks by engaging in all processes from production to consumption, cannot be ignored.

At one time, they formed international commercial networks connecting domestic and overseas markets, contributing to national wealth.

However, the dark paths they took in collusion with political power were also their responsibility.

Reference and citation: Gyeonggi Province History [Gyeonggi Cultural Foundation]

Photos: National Museum of Korea · National Archives of Korea