3 ms·

Why? The model has worked for Korea in many ways. Korea was an absolute disaster in the 1950s and unprecedented cooperation between private enterprise and gov

by tenpies 10y ago

Why? The model has worked for Korea in many ways. Korea was an absolute disaster in the 1950s and unprecedented cooperation between private enterprise and government was one of the primary reasons why a tiny half-peninsula with no natural resources is now a very significant player in the world economy. Very few of the problems Korea is facing would be solved by a shift to "a true liberal democracy", whatever that means.

chajath 10y ago
Ethics and morality aside (Can you really divorce them from the political economy, though), what worked at a particular context at a particular time doesn't necessary entail that such arrangement will work forever. Different stage in social and economic development calls for a different model. I recommend Jonathan Tepperman's book "The Fix" [1]. His chapter on Korea is, in my point of view, fair, forgiving and sympathetic towards Chaebol system. He divides the development in Korea into three periods: Dictatorial development (which I think what you call cooperation b/w private enterprise and government) 1962~1987 and democratization 1987~1997 and liberalization 1997~. I think he presents a case of what would've worked in a cheap labor export economy wouldn't work well in a post-industrial advanced economy, and how the country should move on. [1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/2016-09-20/fix-how-nations-survive-and-thrive-world-decline https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/2016-09-20/fix-how-nati...
bane 10y ago
It's not clear that the approach used to lift the Korean economy out of the poverty of the 50s to today's levels is the approach that needs to continue. The population, resources and global connection Korea has now has radically transformed the kinds of economic approaches the country needs to try. For example, in the 50s through the 70s, an important economic initiative was getting shoes for people. It both created jobs (making the shoes) and enabled people to get to work cheaply. Thus the gomusin was created. It would be crazy today to have the same initiative in place. Times are different.

by tenpies 10y ago

chajath 10y ago

Ethics and morality aside (Can you really divorce them from the political economy, though), what worked at a particular context at a particular time doesn't necessary entail that such arrangement will work forever. Different stage in social and economic development calls for a different model. I recommend Jonathan Tepperman's book "The Fix" [1]. His chapter on Korea is, in my point of view, fair, forgiving and sympathetic towards Chaebol system. He divides the development in Korea into three periods: Dictatorial development (which I think what you call cooperation b/w private enterprise and government) 1962~1987 and democratization 1987~1997 and liberalization 1997~. I think he presents a case of what would've worked in a cheap labor export economy wouldn't work well in a post-industrial advanced economy, and how the country should move on. [1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/2016-09-20/fix-how-nations-survive-and-thrive-world-decline https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/2016-09-20/fix-how-nati...

bane 10y ago

It's not clear that the approach used to lift the Korean economy out of the poverty of the 50s to today's levels is the approach that needs to continue. The population, resources and global connection Korea has now has radically transformed the kinds of economic approaches the country needs to try. For example, in the 50s through the 70s, an important economic initiative was getting shoes for people. It both created jobs (making the shoes) and enabled people to get to work cheaply. Thus the gomusin was created. It would be crazy today to have the same initiative in place. Times are different.