Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Economic Development of South Korea under Park Chung Hee (1961-79)


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Travel
  • Want to preview some of our plans? You can get 50 Woodworking Plans and a 440-Page "The Art of Woodworking" Book... Absolutely FREE ★★★
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Get access to 16,000 woodworking plans, Download 50 FREE Plans... ●●●
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Great presentation! The Chilean Chicago Boys are a bunch of mediocre economists if compared to Park Chung Hee's pragmatism and EOI. Compare Chile and South Korea at 2017, and the results are obvious.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Economic Development of South Korea under Park Chung Hee (1961-79)

  1. 1. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT OFSOUTH KOREA UNDERPARK CHUNG HEE(1961-1979)How South Korea escaped poverty andbecame one of the richest countries in theworldHyunsu “Philip” ChoEdmonds-Woodway High School
  2. 2. ► Despite trillions of aid given, 2.6 billion live w/ less than $2 a day► Countries in Africa and Lat. Am. are still dependent on commodity exports► Productivity has stagnated in Lat. Am. - falling behind in intl competitionPOVERTY IS A STUBBORN THING
  3. 3. ► GDP per capita around $100, poorer than Philippines ► Ravaged by the Korean War (1950-3) ► Large standing army - menace from North ► Largely agarian country ► Lack of natural resources - coal, iron, copper, oilSOUTH KOREA IN 1950S
  4. 4. ► GDP growth averaged 9-10% a year► Manufactoring sector took greater share of the economy (close to 30% - comparable to West Germany)► “Boys who grew up working in rice paddies found themselves building oil tankers and designing semiconductor chips.” - Mark L. CliffordSOUTH KOREAN ECONOMYROARS
  5. 5. RESEARCH QUESTIONTO WHAT EXTENT did Park Chung Hee‟s iron rule contributeto South Korea‟s economic growth?
  6. 6. ► Sense of desperation ► U.S. aid kept people barely alive: 1/2 of national budget ► 1/5 of adults unemployed; social unrest fueled by unemployed youth ► Menace from the North► Traditional social structure dismantled ► Land Reform: wiped out traditional landed aristocracy► Tepid economic growth, lack of manufacturing base ► Democracy seemed helpless in mounting economic challenges ► Capital shortage kept businesses from growingPOSTWAR SITUATION
  7. 7. ► seized the capital + other important cities ► purged politicians on corruption charge ► brought businessmen into submission (June 14 law) ► The military was the most modern sector of that time “Western democratic institutions do not harmonize with the underdeveloped conditions of Korea.” – ParkPARK STAGES MAY 16REVOLUTION
  8. 8. ► Economic growth as the historical goal, to be achieved at all cost ► “In human life, economics precedes politics or culture.” – Park► “Guided Capitalism”: The state as the engine of economic development ► central planning + gov‟t intervention in the market ► industrial policy, corporate state► Influenced by state-planning in ManchukuoPARK‟S “DEVELOPMENTALISM”
  9. 9. ► The state intervenes in individual firms‟ decisions► Economic Planning Board (EPB) : planning, national budget► Ministry of Finance (MoF) controlled the banking sector ► Nationalization of banks ► Extraordinary power over credit-starved businesses► All businesses were required to join associations ► Policies, regulations, orders move quickly from ministries to firms ► domestic cartels – steady stream of profit► Enfoncement devices ► Cutting off credit line • Personal connections ► Arbitrary tax audit • Uneven law enforcementKOREAN CORPORATE STATE
  10. 10. Top-down, General Headquarter style Other Gov‟t - Park himself made major decisions Ministries MoF (Ministry of state-owned Finance) banks EPB (Economic Planning Board) MTI (Ministry of industry/business Trade + Industry) associations FKTU (Federation (gov‟t-controlled) Businesses of Korean Trade industrial unions Unions)National Budget Coopted labor
  11. 11. ► Pro ► Allows for great flexibility in policy implementation ► Channel of communication b/w gov‟t and private sector ► Unlike Mussolini, Park utilized corporate state to the fullest► Con ► Coercive element – individual initiatives are often compromised, tight gov‟t control, the state always had upper hand ► Red tape – maze of permits, regulations, and licenses ► Institutionalized corruption ► favors big business over small businessKOREAN CORPORATE STATE(CONT.)
  12. 12. ► Early 1960s: dollars began to run out; U.S. threatened to cut aid► 2nd FYP: Build industries targeted to export markets ► 1960s: S. Korea utilized cheap labor – light manufacturing► Huge incentives for exporters ► Import license conditional on export performance ► Tariff exemption for raw materials and machinery ► Exporters could automatically borrow against overseas orders ► More credit to companies w/ superior export performance► Coercive element: Corporate state had business go alongEXPORT-ORIENTEDINDUSTRIALIZATION (EOI)
  13. 13. 1st Export Promotion Meeting (1960) Park hands over export towers► Monthly Export Promotion Meeting ► President, gov‟t officials, academics, reps from trading companies – “rapid response team” for exporters► Export Day (11/30) ► “Export towers” to companies w/ best export performance EXPORT-ORIENTED INDUSTRIALIZATION (EOI)
  14. 14. ► Scoured the world for new export markets ► Helped Korean businesses how to market their products in foreign countries ► Key to overcoming the obstacles early exporters facedKOREA TRADE PROMOTIONAGENCY (KOTRA)
  15. 15. ► HUGE SUCCESS!► Exports skyrocketed; trade deficit stayed under $1 billion ► S. Korea established a firm international standing in light industries – shoes, wig, clothes, plywood etc ► Foreign borrowing + direct investment plugged the gap► Exports: $33 million -> $3.3 billion (100 times)► Imports: $343 million -> $3.8 billion (11 times) ► Raw materials + machinery for export industries► Investment: 6% of GDP -> 23% of GDPRESULTS (1961-73)
  16. 16. EOI (EXPORT ISI (IMPORT PROMOTION) SUBSTITUTION)► Taiwan, South Korea ► Latin America, Soviet Union, Mussolini‟s Italy, North► Selective, short-term protection – Korea international competition makes infant industries grow up ► Blanket, permanent protection – infant industries don‟t grow up ► Up-to-date machinery introduced ► Lack of competition → ► Experience w/ overseas market drag in int‟l competitiveness► Gov‟t complements market forces ► Inflated wages ► Correction of market failure – high ► Tried to reinvent the wheel: set-up costs of exports; imperfect expensive intermediate goods information ► Gov‟t resists market forces ► Meritocracy in allocating credit ► Balance of Payment crisis lowers► Reduced possibility of BoP crisis quality of inputs► Selective use of FDI (Foreign Direct ► Dependence on FDI and foreign Investment) aidWHAT‟S GOOD ABOUT EOI?
  17. 17. ► North Korea continued its offensive; U.S. threatened to withdraw its troops ► Yushin Constitution ► Nation ruled under martial law; Korea became Single Party State ► Park turned into dictator ► KCIA censored the press, eavesdropped phone callsTHE BIG PUSH (1973-79)
  18. 18. ► HCI (Heavy & Chemical Industries) Plans – 4th FYP► Aim: build up defense► Shipbuilding, machinery, chemicals, steel, electronics, automobile► Unprecedented industrial expansion► Good: gain experience in heavy industries, which create far more added value; acquire managerial skills; economies of scale ► Korea became competitive in semiconductor, shipbuilding, steel► Bad: policy loans caused massive inflation in 1970s; some target industries didn‟t work out in the end (i.e. aluminum)THE BIG PUSH (1973-79)
  19. 19. ► Lure Koreans who‟d been educated overseas with attractive pay packages ► Cutting-edge managerial techniques and scientific knowledge ► KAIST (Korea Institute of Science of Technology) ► engineering education“REVERSE BRAIN DRAIN”
  20. 20. ► State-owned enterprise► World Bank refused to finance the project► Park Tae Joon used personal connection in Japan to channel reparations (for past colonization)► Ran like military ► Rapid construction schedule + high quality standard ► Long work hours (60-70 hour work week)► Became one of the largest, most efficient steel maker in the world► Opened up the way for heavy industriesPOSCO: INTEGRATED STEEL MILL
  21. 21. ► National conglomerates (groups) run by founding families► Profitable firms subsidize less profitable firms within the conglomerate (cross-subsidization)► Factors ► Scarce credit + abounding investment opportunities ► Red tape – lots of paperwork ► Export promotion – bigger is better in export market ► State-owned banking sector – political clout was a must to secure loans► Quite a few became successful global multinationalsRISE OF CHAEBOLS
  22. 22. PARK: A HERO OR A VILLAIN?Controversy still continues
  23. 23. ► Economic growth was impossible w/o Park ► Western-style democracy isn‟t fit for an undeveloped country like Korea ► Nonpartisan planning is the way to rapidly modernize ► Park had a grand vision for economic development Kim Seong Jin – President Park‟s former secretaryCONSERVATIVE HISTORIANS
  24. 24. ► Strength ► EOI wasn‟t as politically palatable as ISI (popular in 3rd world countries) ► Businesses were reluctant to export if left on their own ► State autonomy allowed for quick policy decisions ► Capital market hadn‟t fully developed (curb market)► Weakness ► Park didn‟t have a “vision” (1st FYP didn‟t include export promotion) ► Park adjusted his strategies according to economic realities ► He listened to U.S. AID advisers + foreign-educated technocrats ► Park was luckier than his Latin American counterpartsEVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
  25. 25. ► Military/Economic alliance with the United States ► U.S. wasn‟t so friendly w/ some Latin American countries ► U.S. aid $3 billion by 1968; Vietnam gave military contracts ► The Cold War: need to contain North Korea ► U.S. gave Korea considerable freedom in economic policy► 1960s: rise of international division of labor ► Labor cost too high in developed countries► Opposition was weak/unorganized; the state was autonomous ► Anticommunism: leftists and labor unions were repressed ► Land reform of 1950s: landed aristocracy wiped out ► Bourgeoisie lost wealth during wartime; industrialists and businessmen were dependent on the state for foreign aidEXTERNAL FACTORS
  26. 26. ► Harms done by Park‟s iron rule outweigh benefits of economic growth ► South Korea‟s economic development was mainly driven by external factors above Park‟s control ► Chaebols became a huge liability ► Expansion into many different fields of production, regardless of profits Jin Jung Kwon – a ► High debt-equity ratio – social critic vulnerable to recessions ► Corrupt gov‟t-business allianceLIBERAL HISTORIANS
  27. 27. ► Strength ► Democracy and economic development aren‟t mutually exclusive ► Labor sacrificed too much ► Jeon Tae-il (labor activist) burned himself in 1970 ► External factors ► 1997 financial crisis: gov‟t allowed chaebols to borrow excessively► Weakness ► Efficient developmental state requires autonomous state ► Initial phase of development entails hard time for labor ► Economy of scale is necessary to compete in global market ► Gains in competitiveness stuck after 1997 financial crisis ► Not every leader can take advantage of good environmentEVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
  28. 28. ► Park instilled into people the value of thrift and hard work ► Although circumscribed, private property encouraged investment ► Korea had (virtual) free trade ► Park contained communist North ► Park is guilty of central planning ► Economy is best left to the individual ► Economic freedom and political freedom are intertwinedKim Jeong Ho – president ofCenter for Free Enterprise (CFE)LIBERTARIANS / NEOCLASSICALS
  29. 29. ► Strength ► Saemaul (New Community) Movement mobilized idle workers in countryside ► Businessmen and entrepreneurs maintained their roles ► Exporters didn‟t pay tariffs on raw materials + machinery ► Businessmen couldn‟t speak up against gov‟t, fearing their credit lines might be cut off► Weakness ► Corporate state forced businesses to invest more than they would otherwise; cult of austerity induced people to save ► Gov‟t intervention corrected market failures in exports ► Gov‟t selectively protected + nurtured infant industriesEVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
  30. 30. ► Chaebols served to protect national economy from predatory foreign capital ► Park‟s developmental state offers model for “economic democracy” ► State-owned financial sector ► Extensive control over capital ► A democracy is powerless if it cannot contain the excesses of the marketChang, Ha-Joon – author of23 Things They Don’t Tell You AboutCapitalismCONTRARIAN
  31. 31. ► Strength ► Profits made by chaebols stayed within the border ► Corporate state ensured that businesses act in accordance with the national interests► Weakness ► Modern nations with sizable population have representative democracy. Putting too much financial power to politicians is like putting all eggs in one basket. ► Corporate state requires autonomy of the state – interest groups hamper such development. ► Chaebols are just like other multinationals of the worldEVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
  32. 32. ► Park has built a “Tiger Daddy State” ► Economic development in exchange for political freedom ► Single party corporate state speeded up development ► Businesses were forced to compete overseas► Park was pragmatic and flexible ► Took maximum advantage of int‟l + domestic politics ► EOI as result of policy adaptation ► Acknowledged role of businessmen and entrepreneurs ► Recognized need for advanced foreign technology► While developmental state is somewhat at odds with interest group democracy, Park didn’t need iron rule to advance his agenda; state autonomy had been established since 1950sCONCLUSION
  33. 33. ► It takes right kind of “parenting” to develop a country‟s industrial base to internationally competitive level ► Park‟s South Korea: too authoritarian ► Latin America: too overprotective ► Somewhere in the middle ► Alexander Hamilton‟s American School ► France and Quebec: “indicative planning” ► Countries should integrate into world economy, on their own terms► Infant industries need some time to grow and mature► The individual cannot overcome market failures► The individual succeed only so far as his country provides him opportunities to do soCONCLUSION
  34. 34. ► “A Special Report on Latin America: Efficiency Drive.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. <>.► Alam, M. Shahid. Governments and Markets in Economic Development Strategies: Lessons from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. New York: Praeger, 1989. Print.► Chang, Ha-Joon. 23 Things They Dont Tell You about Capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011. Print.► Chang, Ha-Joon. Bad Samaritans: the Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2008. Print.► Clifford, Mark L. Troubled Tiger: Businessmen, Bureaucrats, and Generals in South Korea. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1994. Print.► Hundt, David. “A Legitimate Paradox: Neo-liberal Reform and the Return of the State in Korea.” The Journal of Development Studies 41.2 (2005): 242-60. Print.BIBLIOGRAPHY
  35. 35. ► Keon, Michael. Korean Phoenix: a Nation from the Ashes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International, 1977. Print.► Kim, H. Edward. Decade of Success: Koreas Saemaul Movement. Los Angeles: Harry-Young Publications, 1980. Print.► Kuznets, Paul W. Economic Growth and Structure in the Republic of Korea. New Haven: Yale UP, 1977. Print. Publication of the Economic Growth Center.► Lin, Ching-yuan. Latin America vs East Asia: a Comparative Development Perspective. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1989. Print.► Minns, John. “Of Miracles and Models: the Rise and Decline of the Developmental State in South Korea.” Third World Quarterly 22.6 (2001): 1025-043. Print.► Park, Chung Hee. The Country, the Revolution, and I. 2nd ed. Seoul: Hollym, 1970. Print. New Horizon in Asia.BIBLIOGRAPHY
  36. 36. ► Park, Sooyoung. “Analysis of Saemaul Undong: a Korean Rural Development Programme in the 1970s.” Asia-Pacific Development Journal 16.2 (2009): 113- 40. Print.► Ramstad, Evan. “The Miracle Is Over. Now What?” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 8 Nov. 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. < 3756.html>.► Schuman, Michael. “Asias Latest Miracle.” TIME. TIME, 15 Nov. 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <,9171,2029399,00.html>.► Song, Byung-Nak. The Rise of the Korean Economy. Hong Kong: Oxford UP, 1990. Print.► Tae, Yun. “Neoliberalism and the Decline of the Developmental State.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 29.4 (1999): 441-61. Print.BIBLIOGRAPHY
  37. 37. ► White, Gordon, and Jack Gray. Developmental States in East Asia. New York: St. Martins, 1988. Print.► World Bank. GDP (current US$). 26 Apr. 2011. Raw data. Google Public Data Explorer.► World Bank. GDP per capita (current US$). 26 Apr. 2011. Raw data. Google Public Data Explorer.► Woronoff, Jon. Koreas Economy: Man-made Miracle. US ed. Oregon, U.S.A.: Pace International Research, 1983. Print.BIBLIOGRAPHY
  38. 38. ► 강, 양구. “삼성, 이씨 3세 세습 용인하고 받을 것 받자!” 프레시안. PRESSian Corp., 04 Jan. 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <>.► 김, 성진. “ „유신철학‟ 회견.” 중앙일보. 중앙일보사, 26 Apr. 2005. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. <>.► 김, 성진. “한국적 근대화.” 중앙일보. 중앙일보사, 13 Apr. 2005. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. <>.► 김, 정호. “박정희 모델의 공과.” 자유기업원. (재)자유기업원, 01 Feb. 2005. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. <>.► 김, 종혁. “역대대통령 평가 „박정희, 민주화 역설적 씨앗„ “ Comp. 배노필. 중앙일보. 중앙일보사, 23 Apr. 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. <>.BIBLIOGRAPHY (KOREAN)
  39. 39. ► 손, 제민. “김수행 교수 „박정희 공과론이 신자유주의 부추겼다„ “ 경향신문. 경향신문사, 09 Aug. 2007. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < 11&code=960100>.► 송, 화선, comp. “경제정책과 사회통합에 대한 보수와 진보의 시각.” 신동아. 동아일보사, 01 Dec. 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < 00040/200912100500040_1.html>.► 이, 완범. “한국경제 도약의 지렛대, 박정희의 수출 드라이브.“ 신동아. 동아일보사, 01 Feb. 2007. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < 00036/200702120500036_1.html>.BIBLIOGRAPHY (KOREAN)
  40. 40. ► 임, 혁백. “발전국가과 민주주의는 양립불가능한가?: 권위주의적 산업화론에 대한 비판적 검토.” 정부수립 60주년 기념 한국정치외교사학회 학술회의. 연세대학교 상남경영원, Seoul, Korea. 31 Oct. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < 7&no=108>.► 허, 동연. “미국이 버린 제2공화국, 나약하지도 무능하지도 않았다.“ 신동아. 동아일보사, 01 Dec. 2006. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < 0004/200612080500004_1.html>.► 황, 상익, dir. “박정희 재평가 어떻게 볼 것인가?” 황상익의 쟁점토론 난장. 민중의 소리. 23 July 2004. YouTube. Google, 28 Dec. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2011.<>.BIBLIOGRAPHY (KOREAN)