Introduction
South Korea, along with other "Tiger Economies" Japan and Taiwan, is considered a “miracle economy” in the field of political science. Because of its overall prosperity and unusual path to becoming so (Lim 2016), this phenomenon is often referred to as the "Miracle of the Han River." Now, even amidst the impeachment of the former president of Korea, Park Geun Hye, South Korea is considered to be one of the most successful nations in Asia. Being the home to corporate superpowers such as Samsung, Hyundai, and the Korean Pop (K-Pop) industry, South Korea is the fifth largest exporter in the world (Observatory of Economic Complexity).
The purpose of this research is to explore the rich literature on this subject and test hypotheses that explain this phenomenon in a real-world context. While I am not suggesting the existence of internal validity issues with the existing investigations of these theories, it is important for a student of political science to attempt to apply learned concepts in new environments. This specific project is based entirely on the opinions of six South Korean citizens who possess varying involvements in its political, economic, educational, and societal systems and should be considered statements that attest to present-day applications of these well-established theories.
Background
To better understand the phenomenon that is South Korean economic prosperity, it is important to acknowledge the isomorphic relationship between their history and Western economic superpowers. Much of Korea's ascendance to economic success began after the conclusion of World War II and also end of the Japanese colonization of Korea, resulting in the Soviet occupation of the North and American alliance in the South divided by the 38th Parallel. The three-year Korean War, which resulted in an unresolved armistice, caused great economic and societal stress for the Republic of Korea.
The following years progressed along the lines of martial to democratic rule, which was continuously changed by public opinion and unrest by mainly university students. Going into the 2000s, South Korea experienced two sound elections of presidents during a time of dissonance with the North. However, the country was still recovering from the economic ruin caused by the notorious IMF crisis, which resulted in widespread loss of employment and bankruptcies in the 1990s. In 2008, much like the rest of the world, South Korea also experienced a financial crisis due to taking on large amounts of foreign debt, although not to the devastating extent of the former. Korea's recovery from these crises is a phenomenon that contributes to this research and will be discussed shortly in a more specific context.
Economic Prosperity and a Strong State
The debate among rational analyzations of East Asian economies, as well as general economics for that matter, is largely centered around the fundamental question of the role of the state. In the case of East Asia and others, the debate has taken two perspectives. While some argue that it is, in fact, the supposed liberalism of East Asian economies and their adherence to basic free market principles that give way to financial and commercial success (Henderson 2000), others argue the exact opposite. Arguments that the strong central government of Korea and its extensive links to the global capitalist system and the "developmental state" explain its rapid growth are a large part of the rationalist explanation (Bates 1988). More specifically, the rapid development during the Park Chung Hee regime of 1961 was a stark contrast to the previous administration and implemented several policies that proved that its difference from other non-developmental periods was, in fact, the stronger leadership. The research conducted by Joseph E. Stiglitz, an economist at Columbia University, found this to be true and stated in his 2002 book "Globalism and Its Discontents" that “it was only when these countries stripped away the regulations, under pressure from the US Treasury and the IMF, that they encountered problems."
On this subject, there is much agreement among the interviewees concerning the role the Korean government plays in the economy and society in general, especially when recovering from the crisis. While they feel the Korean government is closely integrated with economic institutions, an argument for economic success in the field of political science, this was also expressed with caution. In the ways described by the interviewees, some methods of Korea's strong state in pursual of development are not necessarily a reason for success, but rather result in dissatisfaction of the people. Most notably, the power of multinational corporations, chaebols, and, as an example pointed out by one of the interviewees, the rise of JTBC within the government is a cause for concern.
However, the debate surrounding the relationship between democracy and capitalism is very much alive in the field of political science and should not be disregarded. Although most political scientists acknowledge there is a relationship between capitalization and democratization, it is still contested whether this relationship is causal. Some researchers, such as Seymour Lipset, are firm believers in the modernization theory, which theorizes that democratization is, in fact, the final stage of modernization or capitalist development. Therefore, for the purpose of this research, we can neither confirm nor discount that it these apparent anti-democratic forces in South Korea would deter economic development.
Because of recent shifts toward export-based economic policies (Miller 2011) and several interviewees pointing out that "there are many laws that mostly benefit major companies," this indicates a different era in development for Korea where policies are not similar to that of the previous high-growth periods. The question to the interviewees then concerned the current administration and its implementation of policies that continued a legacy of either underdevelopment or growth. This becomes a difficult analysis in a time engulfed by scandal and that has been, as mentioned by more than one of the interviewees, a cause for embarrassment to many Koreans and thus requires limited discussion. Those that did express an analysis of policy, however, expressed a frustration with the unbalanced priorities of former president Park Guen Hye, which were not reflective of that of her father's regime as discussed earlier. Collective policies that focused on domestic stimulation, currency reform, and the establishment of financial institutions in Korea are now replaced by export-focused measures that reduce domestic barriers to production.
However, some interviewees offered other possible explanations for recent growth, if not direct central government control. When asked to compare Korea's economy with other "miracle economies" in Asia, a few points of significance were brought about that could offer a more in-depth understanding of recent changes in Korea's economy. First, while it was acknowledged that the economies were of similar structure and do in fact exchange certain aspects, such as the chaebol system in Korea being based on Japanese economic structure, many of the key differences lie in the Korean public itself. The bell curve grading system implemented in many Korean schools, it was argued, can actually be a possible explanation for the sense of competition felt by Korean citizens to match both their Asian neighbors and other OECD countries. Additionally, the resilience felt by the older generation to not repeat the past economic collapses is a spirit that will perhaps be passed to younger generations- a notion denied by several of the interviewees. It was also made clear that the dedication to the development of societal institutions such as infrastructure has been a large part of Korean political life for some time, and will probably continue to do so, despite funding for these projects taking significant cuts in this year's budget (Kim 2016).
In addition to the explanations offered above, a cultural argument for prosperity also currently dominates (but is also highly criticized) in the comparative politics field.
Prosperity in Culture: Confucian Principles in Contemporary East Asia
A popular yet highly contested argument for prosperity in Korea and East Asia is the correlation between the Confucian principles deeply held in society and economic success (Lim 2016). While few scholars would argue that this alone can describe the phenomenon, certain components of the Confucian belief system are believed to play a large role in how citizens participate in politics and the economy. One contest to this theory is its modern applicability not only among the quotidian society but also the elite. More specifically, if values such as adherence to authority, self-sacrifice, and harmony are practiced, if at all, evenly among different societal groups. The three main questions upon which my research focuses regard their modern applicability, use by the government and large corporations, and also the effectiveness of such values in creating a more prosperous state.
Interestingly enough, there were some disparities among the responses about the use of Confucian values in everyday life. Some interviewees discussed distinct memories of being taught such principles by their families and schools during early childhood and still uphold such practices today. Others, however, discussed the large decline in its usage among younger generations. Regarding the practice among the elites, however, almost all of the interviewees stated that holding such values is in the rational interest of heads of power because of the direct benefits. In fact, one of the interviewees observed that even some multinational corporations in Seoul tend to slowly adopt these cultural tendencies and become "Koreanized." However, there were further comments on the inefficiency of this, a direct contradiction of cultural theory explanations.
While searching for a work position in Seoul, an interviewee shared that she prioritized non-Korean organizations because of their divergence from these values, stating that employees could actually leave at a reasonable time, have more candid and straightforward conversations with superiors, and be consulted more often for decisions through vertical relationships. Which, as also described by others, seems to be a more effective entrepreneurial feat. Because of the observations that this culture is supposedly fading with the coming generations, some of the interviewees feel unsure about the future of the economy. A few of the most dominant concerns were for the improvement of the education system and the continuance of the hard-working spirit of the Korean people- being self-proclaimed explanations for growth.
Conclusion
While some would argue that empirical research on East Asia is not as established as Western cases, the theories exploring the phenomenon of South Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese prosperity have produced a myriad of research-based explanations worth regarding. The qualitative data collected in this small-scale project is not only an attempt to contribute insight at a basic level of analysis but also create an incentive for more large-N research.
I would like to thank those who participated in this project at multiple levels: my interviewees who took the time to meet with me and discuss difficult subjects without much preparation, my professors for providing helpful literature and insight, and those who assisted in the editing process as well.
CITATIONS
Bates, Robert H. "Toward a Political Economy of Development." In Toward a Political Economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988b.
Henderson, David. "Lessons of East Asia's Economic Growth: Fresh Perspectives on East Asia's Future." In Stand! Global Issues. Boulder: Coursewise, 2000.
Kim, SeiWan. "Korea's Budget for 2017." Business Daily. Arirang, Seoul: 1 Dec. 2016. Television.
Lim, Timothy C. "Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Approaches and Issues." Boulder: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 2016.
“South Korea.”Observatory of Economic Complexity. Macro Connections, 2014. Web. March 2017.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Globalization and Its Discontents." New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002.
Comments
Post a Comment