![]() Alice Amsden has chosen a third and more difficult task: chai. A second line of attack is to probe the institutional and political underpinnings of Korean growth, a complex and often sordid history that economists tend to overlook. One line of attack is to challenge the descriptive accuracy of the neoclassical approach by cataloging the variety of government interventions that in fact occurred. For a number of years, a group of dissident economists, political scientists, and sociologists have been chipping away at this model. Subsequently, there were important changes within the export-oriented growth model, but the central commitment to an outward-oriented strategy was never abandoned, even during the heavy industry drive of the late 1970s. These, in turn, were brought into play by liberalizing reforms that were launched under the Chang Myon government, carried forward by the military, and consolidated and extended under the nominally "civilian" government of Park Chung Hee in 19. ![]() If 181 182Journal ofKorean Studies true, Korea's growth can be explained as the result of investor responses to market forces. If these arguments seem simple and straightforward, their implications are profound, not only for an understanding of Korea, but for the export of the Korean model to other developing countries. As the mix of national endowments changed-as the country accumulated skills, capital, and technological capabilities-it was to be expected that the pattern ofoutput and exports would shift toward more skill-, capital-, and technology-intensive goods. The neoclassical picture is not a "static" one, as is sometimes claimed. Above all, trade and exchange rate policies were designed to allow, if not force, firms to exploit comparative advantage via exports that were intensive in low-cost labor. The claim is that compared to other developingcountries, Korea's economic strategy emphasized stable fiscal policy, was favorable to business, and allowed relative prices to broadly reflect scarcities. With a few naive exceptions, this view does not contend that Korea's economic policies have been laissez-faire no one seriously believes that Korea resembles Hong Kong. The dominant paradigm derives from neo-classical economics. ![]() None has had wider intellectual, political, and policy ramifications than the debate over the role that state and market have played-and should play-in the process of economic development. In the last decade, Korea has become a testing ground for a number of social scientific controversies. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:īook Reviews Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |