This course will select six most outstanding issues in contemporary Korean politics and will engage in an in-depth, interactive inquiry of those issue. They include Korean politics in history, institutional setting of Korean politics, and dynamics of political culture in Korea, profiles of political leadership, myth and reality of the developmental state and the Korean economic miracle, and debates on Korean unification. The course will expose students to contending theories and empirical reality at first hand. After completing this course, learners will be able to 1. Grasp the most salient and timely aspects of Korean politics.. 2. Place South Korean politics in comparative perspectives. 3. Digest a delicate mix of theory and practice regarding Korean politics. 4. Come up with new interpretations of political development in South Korea. 5. Most importantly renew their genuine interests in Korea and Korean politics.
5.2 Understanding the South Korean Economic Miracle ( I )
Loading...
来自 Yonsei University 的课程
Understanding Korean Politics
58 个评分
从本节课中
The Developmental State and the Korean Economic Miracle
Week 5 will give leaners a very clear explanation of South Korean economic development, including its original conditions, economic take-off and economic crisis. Then the lecture will talk about the limits of developmental state and lead leaners to discuss about the future of South Korean economy.
与讲师见面
Chung-in MoonDistinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Political Science
We have examined in the past and present status of the South Korean economy.
As you can see, the South Korea economy has made a remarkable and
profound transformation in the past 60, 70 years.
And what factors have been responsible for such in a profound transformation?
I would argue that the most important factor,
not most, but
the most continuing factor is international pact factors. Several international factors have
made significant contribution to the transformation of South Korean economy.
First.
Colonial modernity matters.
There is ongoing debate on colonial modernity whether South or
the Japanese colonization of Korea was a positive effect and negative effect, okay.
Conservative scholars argued that the Japanese colonial rule
of Korea made a, by some, important contribution to the South Korean economy.
Liberals and Progressives argued that, that was not the case.
Japanese colony were colonial rule, was nothing but
a mechanic for the exploitation, of Koreans.
But there's contending inner views on undevelopedJapanese
Japanese colonial period.
However, but we cannot deny the fact that Japan made infrastructural
investments such as railroad system, road system and
irrigation system and land cultivation system, and etc.
And also, we cannot deny the fact that the Korean capitalist were
cultivated during the Japanese colonial rule, okay?
Whether they worked for the Japanese or not,
it is true the Japanese colonial authority cultivated some sort of local and
national capitalist to gain the Japanese colonial rule.
And also, I would say that the South Korean
bureaucracy was greatly influenced by the Japanese.
Therefore as a result, by imitating for the Japanese colonial period,
South Koreans adopted a Japanese system of bureaucracy.
And training competent bureaucracy had
something to do with Japanese colonial leaders.
And also, a scholar like Bruce Covings argues that the
later stage economic take up of South Korea had
something to do with regional division of labor
which Japan created during the colonial period.
The likewise, Japanese colonial in the past made us some kind
of contribution to transformation of South Korean economy.
Another important factor I would add is it's American factor but
I'd who have discussed in our first class.
It is American occupation which made completely divergent past
dependence of the political and economic system in North and South Korea.
It was the American military government which implanted the capitalist system in
South Korea.
American occupation authorities inject the market system in South Korea.
And also United States during the Korean War and after the Korean War,
come up with a quite extensive economic military assistance to South Korea.
Without which the South Korea could have never enjoyed [INAUDIBLE]
status of becoming transformation.
United States was not only to simply a provider of economic and
military assistance, but also
The United States intervened in the South Korean policy, economic policy making.
South Korea pushed for
the standardization of South Korean economy in late 1950s and early 60s.
And also it was the United States who pushed the fore
in economic liberalization, such as a liberalization of trade, okay?
And also liberalization of interest rate, liberalization of exchange rate.
All these things are really masterminded by
American government within the context of aid given to South Korea.
And perhaps the most important factor is this.
It was the United States which designed export led growth strategy for
South Korea.
Other people argue that the South Korean economic miracle was the product of
export led growth strategy.
The very export led growth strategy word initiated by American government.
Not for the sake of South Koreans but for the sake of Americans.
Because every time American, a donor thought that the unless
South Korea found its own way of economic take-up and
revenue and had [INAUDIBLE] generate economy.
The United States could not get away from the aid giving to South Korea.
Therefore, as a way of getting away of
aid burden to South Korea, American officers
pushed the South Korea to adopt export radical strategy, during period..
It was true that the United State, South Korea was able to join the GAT,
general agreement and tariffs and trade at the time.
Which later become WTO- World Trade Organization.
By joining GATT System, South Korea could
accelerate export radical strategy in a regular manner.
And also, equally important was South Korean market access to the United States.
When South Korea joined the GATT system,
South Korea could have really asymmetric access to the American market.
In other words, South Korea was pursuing rather trade
policy yet we could have access to American market.
Therefore later in the 1980s that became the source of
disputes over the unfair trade practices by South Korea.
The South Korean unfair trade practices were crafted by the United States.
But again, our open economy,
outward looking economy was a product of American policy design and intervention.
But apart from the American factor is another Japan factors, too.
South Korea normalized diplomatic ties with Japan in 1965.
And afterwards, South Korea first South Korea was able
to get financial compensation from Japan for
ways past in our history of these atrocities and whatever.
But apart from that,
once diplomatic normalization took place between Japan and South Korea,
a large number of Japanese firms were making investments in South Korea.
In fact, at that time,
President Park Chung-Hee created Masan Export Joint,
a free trade joint in Masan Gyeongsannando.
And Japanese exporters came there create offshore production site,
and use the Masan expert join as kind of,
offshore, in a hub for their export promotion.
Their facades create a lot of benefit,
from that kind of Japanese investment pattern.
Okay.
And also, another important issue is what?
Japanese general trading companies
began to hire South Korean firm as a OEM,
so-called original equipment manufacturers.
Therefore, they were giving subcontracting to South Korean firms, okay.
And then they, South Korean firms,
manufacture those goods and supply to the Japanese general trading companies.
In that sense, Japanese are sogo shosha.
General trading companies were the windows to South Korean and their funds.
Here I didn't write down.
But there's another important factor.
That is the horizon to learning from Japan.
If you look back Industrial policy and expert promotion policies
inducting government in mid 1960s up to no, mid 1970s.
Very interesting pattern you see that South Korea has copied
industrial policies from Japan, okay.
>> Electronic promotional, and steel,
semi-conductors, consumer electronics.
If you look at all the important industry sectors, our industrial policy was
nothing but an imitation of Japanese industrial policy.
That kind of horizon
learning from Japan regarding industrial policy and export promotion.
South Korea was able to orchestrate it's own heavy
chemical industrialization plan and export promotion strategy.
Those are the so-called the historical factors.
They're from the colonial legacy and
colonial legacies have positive and negative factors.
American factors, and contemporary Japan factors.
They're all combined, created initially
very preferable conditions for South Korean economy transformation.
But another important factor is market factors or
what we call the neoclassical explanation.
Therefore, economic transformation in South Korea, what is important factor?
This neo-classical economists would argue that it has something to do with
market vectors more than anything else, okay, market vectors.
Then what kind of market vectors,
obviously we should look into factors of production.
The prime factor of production is labor.
In other words, neo-classical economists argue that
availability of abundant qualified manpower was a key factor.
Okay, without manpower South Korea could not have pushed for the strategy.
But they argued though that this human capital was important factor.
At the time, really, was an abundance of highly qualified manpower in mid 1960's.
College graduate in South Korea could not get a job.
Therefore, they were exported to Germany as coal miners.
College degree students as a coal miner in West Germany,
it's quite unthinkable, but that is what happened.
It is very common in Frankfurt, Deutschland you can show that
those are the Korean college graduate going to Germany as coal miners and
Korean nurses going to West Germany.
But another important market factor has something to the succesful land reform.
President Syngman undertook major land reform on June 21,
1949, that really helped emancipating peasants.
Transforming land load into industry capitalists.
All though things served as important counter-measures to
communists during the Korean war.
But anyways, successful land reforms mean what?
The words great space for equity, and
great productivity in the farm sector.
And further on is what the neoclassical economists know.
It's a major dictum that is what, getting the prices right.
Now the South Korea pursued market conforming policies such as economic
stabilization, economic liberalization and other kinds of institutional
changes that were conducive to market function.
Obvious that include the protection of property right too.
Another important market factor is what?
Shorter duration of import-substituting industrialization.
And time transition to acts outward looking in a policy or
timely transition to an export-led growth strategy.
That means what?
If you look at the Latin Americans cases,
most of Latin American countries suffered from what?
Longer duration of import substitute industrialization.
Import substituting industrialization was a designed to reduce
dependency on advanced industrialized
countries by developing manufacturing sector at home.
Therefore, they impose trade barriers to the importation
of manufactured goods from advanced industrialized countries, okay?
And once they pursue this strong currency policy and
also they protected the so called nationalist sector.
They protected industrial sectors in which National bourgeoisie and so-called
Inward-looking in the industrial sectors formed a coalition.
But once ISI continues longer then there is a kind of creation of rent for
those inward-looking social and political forces.
But that in turn undercut economic transformation and
international competitiveness.
But in the case of South Korea, the duration was very short,
less than even five to ten years.
Therefore South Korea's pursuit of ISI in 50s and
early 60s did not lead to the formation of
domestic culturalistic coalition that would systematically opposed or
undermined outward-looking economic strategy.
You'll find a time to transition to an export-led growth strategy another
important factor that contributed to economy transformation, okay.
And also, perhaps I would argue that in the market the most
important heroes are entrepreneurs.
South Korea was full of risk-taking entrepreneurs.
Here we have the founder of the Hyundai Group, Chung Ju-yung.
He's really risk taking and entrepreneur who built Hyundai empire.
But he ventured in automobile, ship building in all these area and
then he contributed to transforming South Korean economy.
Another person is what Lee Byung-chul the founder of the Samsung Group
now Samsung Electronics was his own creation.
He was in fact, Lee Byung-chul was really in the inward-looking economic sectors.
He was manufacturing, you know, sugars, textiles,
whatever, which became the source of ransacking.
But since 1970's he transformed inward
looking industrial sectors into the outward looking industrial sectors.
And Samsung get into semiconductors,
consumer electronics and other kind of so called export sectors.
He played a very important role and third person is Kim Woo-jung,
the founder of the Daewoo Group, okay?
Kim Woo-jung was, he was just a senator then
creating a small trading company called the Hansung Seoul.
And the trading company,
the Hansung Trading Company later evolved into Daewoo Group.
The gigantic general trading Corporation with numerous subsidiaries.
Of course, during the 1997 financial and foreign exchange crisis his company
could not survive because of quite excessive leverages, okay?
But Kim Woo-jung is still remembered as one of the most
entrepreneur and business leaders in South Korea.
