Table of contentsThe legacy of Japanese colonialismA new economic composition“Integrated autonomy” through a strong relationship between state and capitalRepression working classesThis response will assess whether the experience of South Korea's developmental state was a unique phenomenon in economic development or whether it could actually be replicated elsewhere. Before addressing the issue itself, it is necessary to briefly explain that the “developmental state model” is characterized by high levels of regulation and government intervention led by a determined developmental elite; a powerful and isolated economic bureaucracy; a weak and deeply subordinated civil society; effective management of non-state economic interests as well as severe repression of the general population. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay With reference to the question, this answer will examine a number of important factors that have enabled the long-term success of the developmental state in South Korea. : the importance of historical context such as the legacy of Japanese colonialism as well as the Korean and Vietnam Wars, changes in the economic composition of the nation, repression of the working class, the relationship between the state and the capital and finally the way in which “autonomy” enabled the success of development. Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that the legacy of Japanese colonialism laid the foundation for the rest of the mentioned factors and helped South Korea effectively implement the developmental state model, essentially making this experience unique due to historical context. ColonialismFinally, the most significant factor that makes the South Korean model unique from other late industrialized countries such as India and Brazil is that "the furrows that Japanese colonialism carved into the soil Korean social relations are profound. These "grooves" that Kohli speaks of were most evident through a number of key identifiers left by the Japanese colonialist state, for example, the presence of a strong relationship between state and capital, a technocracy fueled by merit, a newly built education system and strong government ministries. . These factors (to be mentioned throughout the answer) combined to make South Korea an almost scaled-down version of Japan that would facilitate years of highly sustainable growth. Overall, this allowed for the presence of a strong centralized government and an interconnected bureaucracy that could control the lower classes with great ease and facilitate the economic expansion of exports with an emphasis on feeding the population. a specific “emerging industry”. However, the years of rapid development that South Korea witnessed throughout the second half of the 20th century were not feasible due to the legacy of institutions left behind, but also the influence of the colonialism on certain individuals, particularly the country's new leader, Park Cheung. -Hey. Recognized by many scholars as a "Japonophile fascinated by the Meiji model", which played a vital role in Japan's development for most of the 20th century, it is not surprising that Cheung-Hee did not believe that a radical change was needed to help Japan. a big developmental explosion and he certainly wasn't wrong. It is clear that “Japan created a unique colonial structure in Korea and Taiwan that is not found anywhere else in the world.” THEmodel of flying geese "Japan" transmits its industries to Saskatchewan and other East Asian states, the investment of Japanese capital, the emergence of global production networks. A New Economic Composition To analyze whether South Korea's experience with the developmental state model is unique, we will now examine the economic success achieved through strict regulation and government intervention under Party rule. Democratic-Republican (DRP). This will allow us to correctly assess the importance of the other factors mentioned in the introduction. The DRP of South Korea was first formed by the government of Park Cheung-Hee on February 2, 1963 until its dissolution on September 1, 1980, shortly after the aforementioned leader's assassination on October 26, 1979. South Korea's execution of the developmental state model During most of the second half of the 20th century following the May 1961 coup, led by General Park Cheung-Hee until the end of 1979, he was the best example of a late industrialist effectively using a guided market economy that prioritized widespread industrialization in order to maintain a significant market economy. levels of growth and development. Late industrialists can be defined as states that began the 20th century with mediocre levels of economic power and achieved drastic increases in national income per capita consistently over time by selectively investing in different industrial sectors . The term "late" is used to differentiate between early industrialized countries such as Great Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States of America. South Korea's newly established Economic Planning Board (EPB) introduced a five-year economic plan between 1962 and 1966, one of the main stipulations of which was to achieve an economic growth rate of 7.1% by during this period. By focusing on export-oriented industrialization or EOI (exports up 29% per year on average over the period), the South Korean economy exceeded this objective by effectively achieving an average growth rate of 8. 9%. Obviously, such an ascending growth rate led to a more accelerated industrialization process. This meant that the state could selectively invest in industrial infrastructure, for example in the production of tungsten, iron and graphite, which were more likely to support the economy in the long term by attracting foreign direct investment from countries such as the United States of America and Japan. Clearly, South Korea's shift from import-substitution industrialization (ISI 1) in the 1950s (common in postcolonial countries) to export-oriented industrialization under the DRP regime was a major success and showed the importance of international trade. This is illustrated by the fact that due to manufactured goods (and the removal of tariffs on imports if they were to be used in the production of exports), the "share of merchandise exports in GDP of South Korea went from only 2% in 1962 to 30% in 1962.” less than 20 years old. By considering South Korea's success, we can recognize that the structural changes to its economy and its EOI success are not entirely replicable to such an extent in other countries. For example, the military junta that controlled Brazil around the same time used a mixture of EOI and ISI 1 and, for a time, this system of "dependent development" was enormously successful, in particular between 1968 and 1973, whereLatin American power has reached astronomical levels. growth due to strong agricultural and industrial expansion. This is supported by the increase in Brazil's gross national product (GNP) of approximately 10% each year between 1967 and 1971, as well as the increase in average per capita income during the same period of approximately 49%. . (Fishlow, 1973: 475) However, this success was short-lived when the oil crisis of 1973 exposed Brazil's dependence on foreign capital, particularly investment from the United States, and brought into evidence the heavy dependence on imports on which the country was built. Although South Korea was not completely spared from the 1973 oil crisis, it experienced a massive rise in inflation of almost 40%; It is evident that due to Brazil's heavy dependence on imports and foreign capital, Brazil was particularly exposed to possible exogenous shocks such as the second oil shock of 1979. The evidence presented in this section showed how economic planning driven by the DPR regime and the economic system The Planning Board (EPB) was highly sustainable from South Korea, while on the other hand, countries attempted to reproduce the development model a found it to be much more difficult to maintain, which signifies the uniqueness of the SK. An “integrated autonomy” thanks to a strong relationship between the state and capital South Korea in order to stimulate the rapid industrialization mentioned in the last paragraph. These chaebols can be defined as large industrial conglomerates that resided as prominent and powerful members of the Korean plutocracy, for example Kyungbang and Packsan Trading Company. In essence, a strong relationship between state and capital is very beneficial for both parties, as it can significantly reduce transaction costs between actors and ensure more effective policy making and implementation. The ideas suggested by Evans also state that, despite a strong relationship, the likelihood of a bureaucratic elite being overly influenced by big business interests should be minimal. This "isolation from bureaucracy" was particularly effective because the state remained the dominant actor in the deal, as it obviously had full control over all investment and credit and was also responsible for setting evaluative performance criteria that the elites business had to reach or achieve. This risks losing the benefits of the relationship between state and capital. Moreover, this leads to one of the most important reasons why other countries have found it almost impossible to properly replicate South Korea's success: the presence, or absence, of large landowners. When Japanese colonial rule in the East Asian country ended after World War II, the richest 2.7 percent of South Korean society (in terms of wealth) owned about 66 percent of all agricultural land; however, nine years later, in 1956, the richest 6% owned just under a fifth of all agricultural land. The reason this is so important is that the lack of large landowners meant that there was little or no desire to focus on the export of primary products as a means of boosting the economy. By relying little on this form of industry, the DPR regime could remain totally dominant and not fear being subordinated by the interests of capital. In comparison with another late industrialized country, Brazil, which is to date the country with the most unequal level of land distribution in the world, with 10% of..