This paper reviews Eun Mee Kim's "Big Business, Strong State", which analyzes the influences involved in South Korean economic development from 1960 to 1990.
1,495 words (approx. 6 pages), 0 sources, 2005, $ 49.95
Abstract This paper explains that many scholars consider the "rags-to-riches" turn-around of the South Korean economy as a marvel especially when compared with other countries such as those in Latin America; thereby, various theories have been proposed to explain this success. The author points out that Eun Mee Kim in "Big Business, Strong State" argues that the rapid economic growth was not due to a static "South Korean model", which was based on the constant strength of either the government or business, but rather a collusion between the state and the chaebol, the large family-owned and managed businesses. The paper relates that Kim's thesis regarding the relationship between the chaebol and the state is weak, dismissing too easily the possibility that the chaebol's influence was actually stronger in the beginning of this economic development than stated.
From the Paper "Beginning with General Park Chung Hee's military coup in 1961, Kim argues that the state took on an authoritarian control over South Korea, launching an aggressive economic campaign called the Five-Year Economic Development Plan (EDP). The EDP focused on transforming the economy from agriculture to industry, mercantile to manufacturing, and production for domestic use to exportation. Park targeted the chaebol specifically rather than establishing state-owned enterprises or supporting small or medium-sized businesses. As Kim contends, the idea being here that growth would be faster if the state encouraged the big businesses to expand into export-oriented arenas. Via strong-arm tactics, economic sanctions involving low-interest-rate loans to successful exporters, internationalization, and colonial legacy, the chaebol became a model for other businesses in South Korea that would, according to Kim, eventually grow beyond the state's control."
Tags:chaebol, authoritarian, peasants, turn-around, theory
Examines the Korean economic situation during the 1997 crisis. Reviews the development of chaebol system, its decision making process, & links between chaebols & banks. Assesses the outlook for the future.
4,725 words (approx. 18.9 pages), 16 sources, 1997, $ 135.95
From the Paper "The Changing Economic Models of Chaebol Capitalism
Introduction and Problem Statement
In late November, 1997, yet another horde of invaders landed on the Korean soil, this time wearing three-piece suits and carrying briefcases. These "invaders" were a large group of numbers crunchers from the International Monetary Fund and their target was the infusion of up to $55 billion in IMF funds to the ravaged Korean economy. Richard Lacayo, in the December 3, 1997 issue of Time Magazine points out: "Just a few weeks before they arrived, Seoul had been calling the idea of an IMF rescue unthinkable. Now the unthinkable is fully under way, and the fund's inspectors have become supervisors of the world's 11th largest economy" (Lacayo, 1997, 37). The real target of the IMF.."
Abstract This paper is a survey report on South Korea with a special focus on its economy. It also contains an overview of its social and political conditions, including a review of some significant issues facing the country.
Geographical Information
Location & Neighboring Countries
Population
Language
Monetary
Economy
GDP (per capita) and Growth Rate
Imports, Exports & Trade Partners
Social Issues
Crime Rate and Corruption
Unemployment Rate
Poverty Rate
Education and Literacy Level
Human Development Index
Political Overview
Type of Government
Brief Political History
Human Rights Record
Other Significant Events
Relationship with North Korea
The Power of the Chaebols Future Competitiveness of Korea/ Increasing Wages
From the Paper "South Korea is located in northeastern Asia and occupies the southern part of the Korean peninsula. It is surrounded by North Korea in the north; the Sea of Japan in the east, the Yellow sea in the west, and is separated from Japan in the south by the Korean Strait. It has a total area of 98,480 km2 (land area: 98,160 km2) and a coastline of 2,413 km. (North Korea, Japan and China being its neighboring countries). The region has a temperate, continental climate with cold, dry winters and hot, rainy summers. (?South Korea,? Encarta, 2003)"
Abstract There are three major theories, namely Abramovitz, Peter and Soete and Gerschenkron, which try to explain the differences of early and late industrialization. However, this essay only focuses on Gerschenkron's theory as it is his theory which concentrates on the attempt to explain the origins of critical institutional differences between major economies. Furthermore, with the help of this explanation, this essay shows in what ways it might account for variations in national performance. First, this essay presents Gerschenkron's theory. It then shows how his theory can be applied to the practical example of South Korea - which, with major institutional involvement, achieved within only 30 years a giant step from an agricultural country devastated by wars, to one of the major industrial countries in today's world.
1. Introduction
2. Gerschenkron's Theory of Late Industrialization
2.1 A Differentiated System
2.2 Backwardness
2.3 Prerequisites for Late Industrialization
2.4 Realisation Through Institutions
3. South Korea's Late Industrialization
3.1 South Korea's Backwardness
3.2 The Role of the State
3.3 Chaebols 3.4 Variations in National Performance
4. Conclusion
5. Reference List
From the Paper "Starting in the late 18th century, Britain was the first country which experienced the process of industrialisation, i.e. the development from an agricultural into a manufacturing based economy (wissen.de, 2003). Britain is therefore referred to as the forerunner and embodiment of 'early industrialisation'. All countries, which started the process of industrialisation after Britain such as Germany, other European countries, Russia and Japan in the 19th century as well as in the 20th century countries from the developing world such as South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore underwent 'late industrialisation' and are referred to as latecomers."
Abstract This paper states that, although globalization has many powerful benefits, financial globalization is not necessarily always a force for good, as in the case of South Korea. The author points out that, before the 1997 crisis, South Korea had embraced globalization and had become one of the great economic success stories in history. The author relates that financial liberalization and globalization were perverted by powerful business interests, which resulted in a banking crisis, a currency crisis and, finally, a full-fledged financial crisis. The paper stresses that the villains of the Korean crisis were the family-owned conglomerates called "chaebol" and their allies in the pre-crisis Korean government. The paper also describes the steps taken by South Korea to stem the downturn and to re-emerge as the strongest economy among all the countries that have experienced financial crises.
From the Paper "South Korea's macroeconomic fundamentals were strong before the crisis. In 1996 inflation in South Korea was below 5%, real output growth was close to 7%, and the country was expected to grow at a rate of more than 6% in 1997. The government budget was in slight surplus, while the current account deficit had fallen from 4.4% of GDP in 1996 to less than 2% in 1997. From a macroeconomic point of view, the South Korean economy seemed well managed, so the financial crisis cannot be attributed to macroeconomic fundamentals. Instead, the source of the crisis was perversion of the financial liberalization process, which had some particularly strange elements."
Abstract In 1992 South Korea stood as a model of prosperity and economic innovation. Only three years later, South Korea followed the rest of East Asia into an economic meltdown. This paper gives a detailed economic history of South Korea and examines the harsh economic policies imposed by the IMF at the start of the Asian financial crisis that led to the economy's eventual collapse in 1998. It also examines how three years on, South Korea faces an unbalanced recovery and a labor movement badly wounded by neo-liberalism, while the majority of its people suffer rising insecurity and falling incomes.
From the Paper "The chaebol are huge, highly diversified, often vertically integrated conglomerates. (South Korea Business) The monoliths started out as small family-run businesses shortly after the war, and many still are family owned and operated. Hyundai and Samsung are two of the best known. "The chaebol account for about one-third of all industrial production, which forms the core of the Korean economy." (South Korea Business) Some critics say the chaebol have a finger in so many pies, and thus control so much of the overall economy, that they are, in effect, oligopolists, and are able to engage in price collusion. (South Korea Business) "
Abstract This paper shows how Daewoo's rapid policy of expansionism into every area of business has ultimately led to their crippling debts. It identifies the problems in Daewoo's economic strategy as the company awaits liquidation. Finally, the paper offers an alternative solution to the one currently adopted by Daewoo and sets down an implementation plan in four steps.
From the Paper "In 1967, Daewoo began business as a small textile firm and in 1975 was given "chaebol" status by the Korean government (Kenzie, 1999, 4). A "chaebol" is the Korean equivalent of the horizontally and vertically integrated Japanese trading company known as the "keiretsu" (Hornik, 1997, 40). Chaebols have strong family control, authoritarian management, and centralized decision making. Chaebol dominate the Korean economy, growing out of the takeover of the Japanese monopoly of the Korean economy following World War II. ("Chaebol Economy at Stake.."1997, Online). The rapid growth of the chaebol was due to tax breaks and financial incentives that emphasized industrial reconstruction and exports (Lee, 1996, 118)."
Abstract This paper explains that the difference in the business environment of Australia and China has the potential to cause considerable problems: Chinese managers are significantly more motivated by economic security, independence and control in contrast to their Australians counterparts. The author points out that companies in Australia are not as bound by government regulations as the Chinese are; even the influence of unions is not appreciated in Australia. The paper relates that, despite the legendary animosity that exists between Japan and South Korea, the two countries have comparable models of economic development; both plans for 'democracy' were borrowed from other governing states.
Table of Contents
Statement of Thesis
Introduction
Review of Case Study
South Korea and Japan
From the Paper "The Australian economy has seen significant changes in the past fifteen years. The government in Australia initiated a series of macro and micro-economic reforms. These reforms were inclusive of phasing out tariffs, waterfront, shipping and air freight reform, financial deregulation, floating of the dollar as well as the freeing up of the labor market gradually. Stated 'key elements' of the reform agenda on the micro-economic scale are that of public sector reform and privatization. "
