Surely, there are other nations that did not “pick winners� and yet had no economic miracle of the dimensions of South Korea.

The Philippines come to mind. In the 1950s the Philippines were in a no more catstrophic state than South Korea. It would appear to me that the chaebol, and what this institution indicates about South Korean culture, is a more potent force for industrialisation than neo-liberal policies.

The Philippines was, and is, a feudal state run by a narrow and incredibly self-serving oligarchy. No wonder its people keep voting in film stars (who then in the great tradition of Philippine politics, rob them blind). They didn’t choose South Korean “dirigisme, but they didn’t choose neo-liberal captalism either. They had chosen for them under Marcos an economic model of kleptocracy through monopolies handed out to Marcos’s criminal cronies. Things only got marginally better under Cory Aquino who stood by her class and did not carry out the necessary land reforms.

Your point on dirigism is an instructive one though, as France pretty much follows that model and to date has maintained a high standard of living- though at the cost of depriving millions of Third World farmers access to European markets through the CAP. Then there is what they did to Japanese VCRs in the 1980s. Shades of South Korea in that.

BTW I take it that you are playfully employing ironic understatement when you say that n the 1950s the Philippines were in a no more catastrophic state than South Korea. In the 1950s South Korea was one of the poorest countries in Asia, devastated from end to end by the Korean War. The Philippines was at the time one of the richest countries in Asia. What opporunities they wasted.

The opportunity costs must have been huge.

This is calculable, in broad terms.

The question of synergies and extra-economic factors, such as the rise of an urban, property-owning middle class with growing cultural commitments to the success of the cartelised, dirigiste system of economic management of South Korea should also be taken into account.

Surely, there are other nations that did not “pick winners” and yet had no economic miracle of the dimensions of South Korea.

The Philippines come to mind. In the 1950s the Philippines were in a no more catstrophic state than South Korea. It would appear to me that the chaebol, and what this institution indicates about South Korean culture, is a more potent force for industrialisation than neo-liberal policies.

South Korea emulated the Japanese and their zaibatsu.

This form of dirigisme may have cost some theoretical (neoliberal)opportunities. But on the other hand, it produced some real opportunities that went begging in the Philippines.

Katz, what explains that particular aspect of the South Korean experience is the export-oriented policies adopted by the South Korean government from the 1960s onwards (after dropping anti-trade import substitution methods). I think we have been through this. It is also fair to say that protection of domestic industry, through import controls, also assisted the then-existing South Korean automakers. But that is not an insightful observation. And why wouldn’t a coddled industry become “the most important” export sector? Who knows how much better off the South Koreans would be if they had not picked winners (as in industries)? The opportunity costs must have been huge.

Cheers
BBB

It is only capitalism that has produced those very bourgeois freedoms that you so rightly cherish. As capitalism blows away the clouds of oppression and ignorance throughout the former Marxist-Leninist world, so too their civil freedoms expand rapidly.

The Korean economic miracle is really one of financial deregulation (foreign capital) and product market liberalisation from the mid-80s onwards.

BBB,

So you agree that this statement does not explain the rise of the most important and dynamic sectors of the South Korean export economy in the 1980s and 1990s — the automotive and electronics industries.

And steve, you’re back! But when are you going to learn? You keep telling these guys not to bother with us, but on it goes. It’s like they’re not even listening to you. Now tell us all about how the ALP is going to win the Federal election ‘cos of trade policy.

BBB while you are at it you can correct the slanderous nonsense you have repeatedly trumpeted about:

the ALP is going to win the Federal election ‘cos of trade policy

I have never made such a nonsensical claim. Please lift your game as over the past couple of days your behaviour has been despicable. I always quite enjoyed reading what you wrote but your effort here yesterday and today is pitiful. Please correct the record.

BBB

Notwithstanding these changes, in some areas South Korea remained (and still remains) a seriously non-neoliberal economy. But it is no answer to the proposition: ‘Neoliberal trade reforms helped create wealth in South Korea’ to say: ‘But South Korea is not a perfect neoliberal country’.

We are in perfect accord on this.

Not at all. Even central planners get lucky sometimes, Katz.

This isn’t an apposite answer to my question. I am expressing no opinion about the relative efficiency of any system.

The answer I would have liked might go along these lines:

Yes, I now recognise that to dispute the contribution of neoliberalism to the development of South Korea is not to dispute the efficacy of neoliberalism.

Katz,

Starting from a very low base, from the 1960s onwards the South Koreans progessively adopted trade policies that reflected classic neoliberal thinking. This included: an export-oriented industralisation programme that replaced the failed import-substitution regime, a phased long-term reduction in trade barriers (see my other comment above), tighter monetary and fiscal policies, and massive financial market liberalisation, including the abolition of commercial banking controls and restrictions on foreign capital.

Notwithstanding these changes, in some areas South Korea remained (and still remains) a seriously non-neoliberal economy. But it is no answer to the proposition: ‘Neoliberal trade reforms helped create wealth in South Korea’ to say: ‘But South Korea is not a perfect neoliberal country’.

Do you assume that a critique of the proposition that the South Korean economy was in a major sense driven by neoliberal principles before 1999 is also a critique of neoliberal political economic principles?

Not at all. Even central planners get lucky sometimes, Katz.

Cheers
BBB

Starting from a very low base, from the 1960s onwards the South Koreans progessively adopted trade policies that reflected classic neoliberal thinking. This included:

(1) an export-oriented industralisation programme that replaced the failed import-substitution regime;

(2) a phased, long-term reduction in trade barriers (see my other comment above);

(3) tighter monetary and fiscal policies; and

(4) massive financial market liberalisation, including the abolition of commercial banking controls and restrictions on foreign capital.

Notwithstanding these changes, in some areas South Korea remained (and still remains) a seriously non-neoliberal economy. But it is no answer to the proposition: ‘Neoliberal trade reforms helped create wealth in South Korea’ to say: ‘But South Korea is not a perfect neoliberal country’.

Do you assume that a critique of the proposition that the South Korean economy was in a major sense driven by neoliberal principles before 1999 is also a critique of neoliberal political economic principles?

Not at all.

Cheers
BBB

Katz, you’ve sure got that right (at least so far as cars and electronics were concerned).

I agree BBB. Some folks are more resistant than others to actual evidence.

Kind of gets drowned out by a solid four decades of neoliberal policy implementation across industries, though.

Now we can start talking about chaebol, Korean cartels that dominated the South Korean economy until their major collapse in 1998. If the government-funded and supported cartelisation of the South Korean economy is an example of neoliberalism, then Mussolini was an economic neoliberal.

The corrupt and rickety chaebol system came crashing down in 1998, exposing the corporatist, dirigiste roots of the South Korean economy.

I like anthony’s approach: we can all occupy the middle ground that says that free trade is, on balance, the way to go, but sometimes countries here and there will deviate from that line in the interests of particular industries that go on to flourish in the global marketplace.

Do you assume that a critique of the proposition that the South Korean economy was in a major sense driven by neoliberal principles before 1999 is also a critique of neoliberal political economic principles?

If so, why?

Cheers
BBB

No mention of the small number of malcontents who frequently seek to hijack protests, and the vast majority who don’t

BBB, I said no such thing. Either Greg M told you that in a dream or you’re misquoted your talking points again I’d suggest.

Cheers
BBB

It’s not mentioned because it is taken for granted, by everybody except for the fantasists among the left who think the right is under attack.

BBB, now that is a neoliberal fantasy! The authorities regularly resort to violence whenever and wherever they decide its the appropriate tactic to silence dissent. The day after the G20 “riot” in Melbourne last year, a number of protesters who were peacefully assembled outside the Museum were brutally assaulted by baton wielding police.

The ‘right’ to peaceful assembly is only as strong as our ability to protect it. The idea that the powers-that-be will respect a legal fiction is naive` in the extreme.

It would appear a politician of the era when bourgeois thought and practice was still revolutionary and yet to morph into reaction was more prescient than his epigones when he said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

The South Koreans were not being well-behaved neoliberals.

Katz, you’ve sure got that right (at least so far as cars and electronics were concerned). Kind of gets drowned out by a solid four decades of neoliberal policy implementation across industries, though. I like anthony’s approach: we can all occupy the middle ground that says that free trade is, on balance, the way to go, but sometimes countries here and there will deviate from that line in the interests of particular industries that go on to flourish in the global marketplace.

Give them a miss Katz

And steve, you’re back! But when are you going to learn? You keep telling these guys not to bother with us, but on it goes. It’s like they’re not even listening to you. Now tell us all about how the ALP is going to win the Federal election ‘cos of trade policy. It’s a narrative I haven’t heard before, but then again you’ve shown that you’re capable of innovative political commentary.

No mention of the small number of malcontents who frequently seek to hijack protests, and the vast majority who don’t

Actually, that’s been mentioned a lot. Even on this thread.

No mention of our democratic right to protest peacefully.

It’s not mentioned because it is taken for granted, by everybody except for the fantasists among the left who think the right is under attack. In one breath you mention the violent malcontents for whom water cannons are purchased and walls erected, the next you are complaining about the difficulties of peaceful protest. Hello? Dissent has been expressed by groups strongly opposed to Howard’s agenda fairly consistently since 1996. This has routinely taken the form of public and peaceful protest during which the police presence was relatively small, where no barricades were put up, and where water cannons were not even considered. The connection between past violence and the NSW Labor Party’s latest tactics is fairly clear.

Cheers
BBB

I thought you might have understood the difference between finance and economy. They are related, but distinct.

Um, Katz, I hate to break this to you but their GDP, which is a measure of their economy, not their financial system, was stagnant in the 1990s.

Mind you, their excellent export orientated industrial sector, which, as the word “sector” necessarily implies, is just part of an economy, not the whole of it, held the whole thing together for them.

But then we “neo-liberal” free trade types would see this as a vindication of our free-trade theories.

Greg, I think you are conflating many things here. Undoubtedly I’m a beneficiary of postwar economic prosperity. I don’t think capitalism has given me the right to hold opinions (and my opinions aren’t ‘unthought out’)- I’ve personally been involved both in my work and political life in the fight for the right to hold and express some opinions and to live my life as I’ve wanted to. The economic system doesn’t confer the right to free speech - that’s a right that people in many different movements have had to struggle for - including in the third world.
I don’t think people in the third world live with the consequences of our opinions [if only our opinions were that powerful!] but with the consequences (currently) of the globalised economic system (among many other things). (I’d mention colonialism and imperialism but I know you’d dismiss such concepts out of hand.)

I have never seen a single post that you have made that suggests in any way, shape or form that you have made any effort at all to inform yourself honestly and objectively about the causes of their poverty and their solutions. All I have seen are the convenient shibbeloths that say that for you it is enough to blame “capitalism� and feel good about it.

I’d be surprised if I’ve ever used the word ‘capitalism’ in any post I’ve written here. And frankly Greg, you wouldn’t have a clue what life experiences I’ve had (including in the third world) or what sources of information I have.

suz to you this is political. For me it’s about human lives

All politics is about human lives.

But then again conservatives do have a basic quality of living in the past with only a couple of outdated economic texts to sustain them so i won’t hold my breath waiting for any great leap forward.

This from someone who derives his creed from that outdated nineteenth century economic text, Das Kapital, the economic theories of which were tried out in the early twentieth century and thrown out everywhere in the late twentieth century, (except in Cuba and North Korea where they’re still trying to make a go of it, though not with any success)!

Oh, the delicious irony of that comment.

You really don’t realise that it is you who is living in the past, do you?

Also it is wrong to describe Japan as the most dynamic industrial economy of the era if you are referring to 1999. Japan’s economy was stagnant right through the 1990s, not dynamic.

Incorrect.

The Japanese financial system was stagnant during the 1990s.

But the Japanese industrial sector continued to dominate world markets, especially the all-important US market.

The Japanese didn’t dominate in South Korea because in important sectors of the market they were banned, as I think that you now glumly acknowledge.

You will note that I was referring only to the industrial sector in the extract you kindly quoted back to me.

I thought you might have understood the difference between finance and economy. They are related, but distinct.

Disappointed you don’t appear to understand that distinction and amazed that you have extrapolated financial stagnation into an incorrect assertion about lack of Japanese industrial success. The Japanese continued to run up huge trade surpluses during the 1990s.

To make the point entirely clear, the Koreans were very concerned about Japanese competition in consumer durables. Of course, they were prepared to buy Japanese capital equipment.

The South Koreans were being intelligently pragmatic.

The South Koreans were not being well-behaved neoliberals.