State Building in Korea: Continuity and Crisis

  • Bruce Cumings
Part of the Political Evolution and Institutional Change book series (PEIC)

Abstract

In the early twenty-first century, the hierarchy of advanced industrial nations remains quite similar to what it was at the end of the nineteenth century: the leading economy today, the United States, was the most productive industrial power then; the leading economy then, the United Kingdom, remains a powerful industrial economy today, its size roughly comparable to France and Italy; Germany is still the economic powerhouse of Central Europe, as it was then.A century ago, Japan’s industrial prowess was just beginning to gain notice, however, and it would not become a major industrial power until the 1930s. A century ago, Korea had just begun to industrialize, something hardly anyone noticed, but today it is a major, fully industrialized country with state-of -the-art technology in many fields. Japan and Korea are striking examples of industrial development precisely because the new entrants to advanced industrial status are so few—or so familiar in their long-run continuity In 1900, a sage might have predicted this outcome for Japan, but no one but a clairvoyant would have picked Korea. South Korea’s growth thus strikes observers as rapid, unusual, even miraculous. So how did it happen?

Keywords

Depression Europe Transportation Amid Marketing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amsden,Alice. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. NewYork: Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Cumings, Bruce. 1997. Korea’s Place in the Sun:A Modern History. NewYork: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  3. —. 1981. The Origins of the Korean War, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. —. 1999.“Webs With No Spiders, Spiders With No Webs: Reflections on the Developmental State.” In The Developmental State. Edited by M.Woo-Cumings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 61–92.Google Scholar
  5. Eckert, Carter J. 1991. of fspring of Empire:The Koch’ang Kims and the Origins of Korean Capitalism. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gale, James Scarth. 1972. History of the Korean People. Seoul: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle:The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kim Dae Jung. 1985. Mass Participatory Economy. Cambridge: Harvard East Asian Center.Google Scholar
  9. Lautensach, Hermann. 1945. Korea: A Geography Based on the Author’s Travels and Literature.Trans. Katherine and Eckart Dege. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Lowell,Percival. 1888. Chosön:The Land of the Morning Calm. Boston:Ticknor and Company.Google Scholar
  11. Palais, James. 1975. Politics and Policy in Traditional Korea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Polanyi, Karl. 1957. The Great Transformation.NewYork: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Tsurumi, E. Patricia. 1967.“Taiwan under Kodama Gentarö and Gotö Shimpei.”Papers on Japan, v. IV. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, East Asian Research Center.Google Scholar
  14. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1992. Unthinking Social Science. NewYork: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Woo, Jung-en. 1991. Race to the Swift: State, Finance and Industrialization in Korea. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Matthew Lange and Dietrich Rueschemeyer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Cumings

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations