Korean Economy in Transition

¦Review Article Korean Economy in Transition TONY MICHELL Studies in the Modernization of the Republic of Korea: 1945-1975. Harvard East Asia Monographs, nos. 87, 89, 90, 91, 92. Cambridge: Publication Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University. Vol. 87: Anne O. Kreuger, The Development Role of the Foreign Sector and Aid (1979). Vol. 88: Sung Hwan Ban, Pal Yong Moon, Dwight H. Perkins, with contributions by Vincent Brandt, Albert Keidel, and John E. Sloboda, Rural Development (1980). Vol. 90: Noel F. McGinn, Donald R. Snodgrass, Yung Bong Kim, Shin-Bok Kim, and Quee-Young Kim, Education and Development in Korea (1980). Vol. 91: Leroy P. Jones and Il SaKong, Government, Business and Entrepreneurship in Economic Development: The Korean Case (1980). Vol. 92: Edward S. Mason, Mahn Je Kim, Dwight H. Perkins, Kwang Suk Kim, David C. Cole, The Economic and Social Modernization of the Republic of Korea (1980). Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) and the Korea Development Institute (KDI) are to be congratulated for undertaking such an ambitious project as the publication of eight volumes on the modernization of South Korea. Collectively they represent a readily accessible source of information on most aspects of Korean economic development and selected aspects of social development. The task of teaching Korean development since 1945 has been made much easier by their appearance. It is probable that any reader of thisjournal is familiar with the series, so I will concentrate on pointing out some of the problem areas and themes that emerge from the series as a whole. Since a major weakness 295 296Journal ofKorean Studies of the series is its lack of chronological structure, preferring instead an analytical approach, the bulk of this review is devoted to some of the chronological turning points in Korea's development and how the material pieced together from the various volumes answers some of the basic questions about that development. Although the two institutions set themselves two objectives, "to examine the elements underlying the remarkable growth of the Korean economy and the distribution of the fruits of that growth, along with associated changes in society and government; and to evaluate the importance of foreign economic assistance , particularly American assistance, in promoting these changes," they apparently did not formulate any standard set of questions stemming from these objectives (Mason et al., p. xxix). In assessing the elements underlying Korea's growth, one of the basic questions is from which date one should start—1961, 1953, 1945, 1910, 1876, 1392? From any point one requires a clear picture of the economy and society at that given date. Did traditional society affect Korean development either positively or negatively? What was the impact ofJapanese colonial rule? What of the prewar economy survived the Korean War? Why was growth slow in the fifties and how did Korea make the transition to high growth in the sixties? How important were exports and trade in this process? What impact did all the activity of the government have on economic growth? What social factors contributed to Korean economic development? How did the providers of capital and of labor interact? How did the labor force develop and what stage had it reached by 1975? The series began with a group ofjoint papers issued in mimeograph form by KDI, eight of which became books in the series under review, while several others are summarized in The Economic and Social Modernization of the Republic of Korea, which will be referred to as the overview volume. It is well worth noting that the chapters in the overview volume are frequently by other people than the authors of the separate monographs summarized. This sometimes results in oversimplification of carefully qualified statements; in other cases, as in David Cole's chapter on "Foreign Assistance," the summary is superior and adds new material to the monograph. One major criticism of the series is that as Jones and SaKong state "The KDI/HHD 'Modernization' studies were conceived on the premise that extensive primary research had already been conducted, and the primary need was to synthesize existing work" (Jones and SaKong; p. 365). Where this premise was well founded, for the most part the series achieved no more than a competent summary...