South Korea - Download as PowerPoint by 8i756ty

VIEWS: 32 PAGES: 15

									 Authoritarian    developmental
    Economic development
    Improving citizen capability (human
     development)
    Elite coalitions with local capitalists
    Coherent, effective bureaucracies
 1950s: Land reform a key early success
 Military coup (1961) start of authoritarian,
  developmental regime under Park
       Main base of support – military
       Forged alliance with capitalists to promote
        industrialization, economic development
           Unions repressed
           Anti-communist propaganda
           Elections rigged in favor of Democratic Republican Party
            (DRP), which had structural and financial advantage
     Near-defeat by opposition initiated harsher
      authoritarianism and repression in 1970s
     Military ruled until 1987
           Ended with protests/demonstrations by students,
            workers, and middle class (created by regime’s
            developmental policies) demands for democratization
   Industrial policy
       State-led industrialization
           Control over banks and assistance to particular
            industries/firms
             Huge, family-owned conglomerates (chaebol) (e.g.,
              Daewoo, Hyundai, LG, Samsung) became competitive
              through industrial policy
           Did not lead to inefficient firms, theft of state funds
             Profitable industries required to repel North
             Capable bureaucrats in charge of economic planning
              (with real autonomy)
             Mutual interdependence between regime and firms

   Social policy
       Social spending aimed at advancing industrialization
        agenda (e.g., education) and legitimation
         (and Korean Central Intelligence
 Military
  Agency) – suppression, indoctrination
 Economic institutions
     Economic planning board; 5-year plans
         parties (electoral machines; not
 Political
  programmatic)
     Façade of democracy
   Democratic transition (1987)
   Authoritarian developmental regime left mixed legacy
     Strong economy; competent, effective bureaucracy; vibrant civil
      society
     Feeble political parties; powerful corporations; increasing income
      inequality
   New political cleavages
     Division over how to approach North Korea
     Social class
     Older and younger (materialist, post-materialist)
   New policies
       Expansion of social spending (through cross-class coalition of workers
        and farmers, social movements, middle class activists); health care,
        unemployment, job training
   Strengthened democratic institutions
     More open elections; new political parties; more powerful legislature,
      judiciary
     Still few programmatic political parties
 Predatory      authoritarian
    No economic/human development
    Elites rely on narrow coalitions
        Pursue policies that enrich themselves and narrow
         network of supporters
    Bureaucracies ineffective
        Widespread corruption and patronage
   British colonial legacy
     Weak sense of nationhood
     “Divide and rule” made ethnicity main line of
      division/political cleavage
     Personal rule by “big men” rather than strong
      institutions
 4 attempts at democratic rule, currently 4th
  Republic (long periods of military rule)
 Predatory regimes characterized by patron-client
  relations
     Ruler Big men military/business people/regional
      leaders  clients (typically of same ethnic group)
     Patronage/spoils = oil revenues, budget, contracts
     divide and rule/repression
   Policies
     Leaders main goal to accumulate wealth, not promote human
      development
     Economic development enriches elite
   Institutions
       Government bureaucracies staffed through patronage
        appointments
   Post-predatory regime
     Transition to electoral democracy (1999)
     Obstacles to democratic consolidation, human development
           Ethnic/religious cleavages
           Patron-client politics
           Weak institutions remain obstacles
       Struggle over balance of power between central government
        and states; division of oil revenues; secular vs. shari’a law
 Developmental          democratic
    Commitment to improving capabilities of poorer
     citizens
    Economic growth/development through market-
     oriented policies
    Political parties build broad coalitions of support
        Support policies that appeal to large groups of voters
    Effective/professional (merit-based)
     bureaucracies
   Post-Pinochet
   Central cleavage is class
       Conflict between landed and business elites (interested in maintaining
        wealth) and lower and middle classes (interested in more equitable
        distribution of income)
   Concertacion leaders have attempted to balance interests of
    classes in a way that promotes capabilities of poorest groups
     Assured elite by agreeing to maintain free-market policies, but with
      higher corporate and income taxes, and concessions to unions
     Workers assured government will increase wages and bargaining power
      (tempered by need for international competitiveness) and improved
      access to health care, education, pension
   Success due to:
     Gradual reforms (in consultation with opposition)
     Programmatic parties and business and labor federations
     Highly competent civil service
     Broad appeal among middle and working classes
   Policies
     Economic growth
     Improved access to education and health care for the
      poor
     Strengthened democracy
     Yet, income inequality remains high; business class
      remains powerful
   Institutions
       Limitation on ability of government to improve
        citizens’ capability even more; aspects designed to
        ensure conservative control over legislature
           Binomial electoral system
           Appointment of senators (ended in 2005)
           Super majority (3/5s) form amendments
       Legislature and judiciary increasingly independent
 Fragmented         democratic
    Leaders form coalitions dominated by large
     farmers, big business, parts of middle class
    Political parities are electoral machines
        Leaders rely on patronage, populism, identity politics
    Civil service (bureaucracy) mixed
        Competent officials
        Highly politicized agencies headed by patronage
         appointments
   Developments post-WWII
     Rapid industrialization, increasing conflict between social classes
      (landed elites/business interests and working class/peasants)
     Military seized power in 1964 (ruled until 1985)
           Pursued growth through state-led industrialization
             Promoted industries; created state-owned enterprises
             Severely repressed working class and pressure for increased social spending
               for poor
   Social class most important political cleavage
     Extremely high income inequality; even higher wealth inequality;
      extreme inequalities in health care, safety, access to education
     Race increasingly so given intersection between race and class
   Fragmented political organizations
     State corporatism used to divide working class (fragmented unions),
      dilute working class political power
     Political parties fragmented
     Widespread clientelism; need for broad coalitions/patronage to govern
 Recentpresidents (Cardoso, Lula) have
 pursued policies aimed at promoting
 capabilities of poorest citizens
    Prevention of severe economic crises
    Movement away from state-led development
     toward market system
    Successful in enacting increased social spending
     aimed at promoting citizens’ capabilities (health
     care, education) and affirmative action
 Challenges
    Significant room for improvement in citizens’
     capabilities
 Fragmented party system
 Fragmented bureaucracy (without autonomy
  and/or effectiveness)
 Legislature fragmented
       Rural bias in lower Chamber of Deputies
       Open list PR increases personal/pork barrel politics
        and reduces party discipline
 Federal system
 Fragmentation of system makes it difficult for
  social democratic presidents to make significant
  strides in promoting developmental democratic
  regime
       Politics of pork prevail over politics of class
       Dominance of elite interests (business, land owners)

								
To top