« For Friday's Discussion | Main | For Friday's Discussion »



Claire Jenkins

I found this article about the history of South Korea's development very fascinating. After hearing South Korea's development strategies being mentioned in previous classes, it was helpful to get a more comprehensive understanding. An aspect of Seth's article that I found very fascinating was learning about South Korea's focus on education and investments in human capital. I think it is evident that South Korea's expansion of education and promotion of human capital investments was very impactful for their economic development. South Korea's history is major evidence that this works. The rapid expansion of education heavily contributed to the economic takeoff of the country. Seth states that enrollment in primary schools tripled, secondary schools enrollment increased more than 8-fold, and higher education enrollment saw a 10x increase. In 1961, South Korea was the "best educated work force of any country with a comparable income level." From 1961-1996, this educational development proceeded rapidly. Secondary education became close to universal and higher education enrollments reached the levels of developed countries. South Korea also focused on acquiring key technical skills and promoting technical education. Seth tells us that, "The state created a number of centers to promote research and the dissemination of technical knowledge to business enterprises." Reading about South Korea's development success and learning about their focus on education makes me think that focusing on human capital investment, such as education and health, are just as, if not more than, important as the institutional factors that we have discussed. We have discussed many times in class that economic development is more than just increasing GDP and incomes; social investments are productive in raising economic growth, which was a major point brought up by Sen. In my opinion, these social and human capital investments should be a crucial component of a country's growth strategy, not something you wait for once you experience growth/do after the fact. Economic development should be approached from a more broad and holistic perspective, with a focus on human capital investments.

Kaylann Adler

One of the most significant parts of this paper, in my opinion, is the investments that SK made in human capital, especially in education. As mentioned in the paper, by 1960, 96% of children were attending primary school. Furthermore, SK also heavily promoted technical education and expanded vocational secondary schools, two-year technical colleges, and other higher education. This follows what we’ve been learning about the importance of developing countries investing in quality education for their citizens, as it seems to lead to a competent and efficient workforce that can adapt well to new technologies. However, one thing that I wished the paper had touched upon more was the rural areas of the country that seemed to get left behind during the rapid development of the country. The paper mentions the 1971-72 New Village Movement to promote rural development and briefly touches on the negative consequences, but I wonder what the income disparities were like between the rural and urban areas. While the paper mentions that, by the 1990s, income and regional equality was better than in most developing and many developed countries, I think that some more information on the rural areas (education opportunities, income, etc.), especially prior to the 90s, would be interesting.

Val Sokolow

One of the things that interested me throughout the article were the seemingly “wrong” things that South Korea did that successfully helped them in economic development. There were several notable things I read that seemed counterintuitive from a Sen-ian perspective of development as freedom. For example, after Park was elected three times, the article says that “he declared martial law and promulgated a new constitution that gave him nearly dictatorial powers.” Upon reading this, I was surprised that such a heavy hand would be almost commended in development. Second, the article lauds the initial creation of the large family-owned conglomerates. I’m not sure why, but the words “large” and “conglomerate” seemed to directly contrast the “family-owned” that came along with the description of chaebŏls. While empowering family businesses does seem in line with a Sen-ian framework, pushing them to be large conglomerates does not. The third thing that surprised me was the campaign that went along with the swift decline in birth rate. Perhaps I’m imagining something much more drastic but reading about “a female sterilization campaign in the 1980s” painted an almost cruel picture of life in South Korea. A female sterilization campaign does not seem to fit with a Sen-ian framework in my mind. Noting these things throughout the article made me question how I have thought of development until this point, and has made me consider some possible successful deviations from a Sen-ian framework.


A few people before me have commented on the development of South Korea's educational system. I agree, it is rather impressive. They were able to dramatically alter the composition of their labor force rapidly. I think it is interesting to see how they were able to accomplish this in combination with land reform spurring educational investment. However, I believe US involvement should be noted because throughout the same period they accounted for 80 of government revenue. The population was so educated relative to income possibly due to lacking job market development. "Only Israel and South Vietnam received more" aid per capita from 1946 to 1976. In my opinion, this credits the efficiency of South Korea to effectively implement aid, transform their economy at the basic level, and implement market controls on chaebols. Eventually scaling upwards through specialization has proved them to be a world leader in some markets. However, we cannot dismiss the human rights violations the women of South Korea faced for their economy to be at its current level.

Claire Kallen

The part of this article I want to focus on in my reflection is the way that South Korea’s economic growth strategy alines with what we had discussed in class. South Korea invested in education and human capital to see large shifts in their growth. It was interesting to read that from 1945-1960 primary education enrollment rates increased 3x, secondary schools increased by more than 8x, and higher education increased 10x. To see the aftermath of that change was very cool to show that investing in human capital through education does, in most cases, help promote economic growth.
By investing so much in education, South Korea became the best-educated work force of any comparable country at their income level. Of course increasing education was not the only factor that lead to economic growth. It is important to consider foreign involvement as well. Although South Korea’s leader did not want to have a large foreign presence, the deficit was made up for by the aid given by the United States in 1956. Foreign aid and inflated exchange rates are what supported crony capitalism. And at the end of the war, South Korea received a lot of aid from other countries, that was then misallocated causing problems early on. This shows that foreign powers had a lot of control over the growth of South Korea which makes me wonder what would’ve happened with out the aid from these other countries?
I do not think South Korea would’ve had the economic growth they did without the help from foreign powers. The influx of foreign aid after the way seemed to made South Korea create a plan to help promote economic growth after witnessing the misallocation of the aid.
It is interesting to consider the question of the role foreign powers plan in other economies and what our world would look like without the presence of trade and corporation.

Jacob Thompson

One thing from this article that I found interesting was the close relationship of the chaebols with the government. I thought it was very intriguing how the government poured funds into a few select companies in order to spark their development. In turn, this led to large amounts of investment through the firms, both in physical and human capital. The strict monitoring of the Korean government to ensure these family owned companies were using their funds correctly showed that direct government intervention can be an extremely effective strategy for developing countries. This ties back to the paper we read last Friday in terms of the idea that business infrastructure is a key factor to enhance development in growing countries. I felt that South Korea provided a great example for this idea, as they clearly outlined how they wanted business to operate and in turn directed them as to how to invest in several different forms of capital. One thing I’m left wondering about this idea is the ways in which the government prevented any of these businesses from obtaining a monopoly. The article mentions this briefly, but doesn’t really dive deep into the ways in which they did so.

Ben Barbour

I found this paper to be the most interesting out of all the papers previously read in this course. I knew that South Korea was one of the four Asian tigers and experienced huge economic growth in the latter half of the 20th century, but I was ignorant of how it was accomplished. Out of all the topics talked about in the paper, I still find it interesting that the chaebols were mainly family run and included mostly friends and family in the top ranks. I think this is interesting because of how many fell in and out of the top 100 list, meaning that family businesses can actually be wildly successful in South Korea. In addition to the chaebols I thought that the government having such a huge role in South Koreas economic development was crazy. I never expected a military regime to have a success story in the economic field like South Korea did, not to mention all the mandates for development that become successful. Among the many developmental programs named in the paper, one that sticks in my head is forcing rural farmers to change their roofs to tiles. This policy brings to light the control the South Korean government held over their people and just how far they were willing to go to achieve economic growth. Overall, I thought the paper was really good, and a blog post isn’t sufficient to talk about why “The Miracle on the Han” is such a different and amazing story of economic development. However, I think that it can be broken down to the role of the government, education, desire to beat out North Korea, and the role of foreign aid.


I loved learning more about the economic development, as well as the history, of South Korea. There were undoubtedly many factors at play that lead to such a high rate of development, but as others have mentioned, their investment in education and human capital starkly contributed to this rise. South Korea was predominately an agricultural economy before the 1950’s. However, they were able to shift to a successful industrialized country in the 1960’s because of the rapid expansion in education. Before this adjustment, South Korea lost many of its skilled workers to Japan, which created a desperate need for educated employees. In only 15 years, South Korea was able to have the “best-educated work force of any country with a comparable income level” through increasing enrollment in schools. Another factor that I was surprised by was South Korea’s role of government/military during the 1940-1990’s. The government obviously had a tight grip on land reform, industrialization, and commercial banks. I wish the article went into more dept of what Park’s “dictatorial powers” entailed in 1972. In some ways, it does seem like the government’s strict policies contributed to their economic development, but I wonder at what scale could they have also been successful with a less centralized government.


Several people have already commented on how an increase in education has significantly helped in the development of South Korea, but I think it is also crucial to note that the increase in education was the utilized by the government to employ a ‘highly competent respected set of officials [who] were able yo help guide and promote economics and social development.’ It was also interesting to read in this paper about the more specific motives for South Korea’s development such as ‘the desire to free their country from its economic dependency on America, the new military leaders were motivated by competition with a rapidly industrializing North Korea.’ This goes back to an earlier question I had about why certain countries were developing and others weren’t and how that is likely in part due to other countries having more or different motivators than others. Also, of course, noting that some countries lack resources even if they do have motivators. I liked in this article that some of the costs of economic development were mentioned too. While development is beneficial, it is important to also realize some of the costs such as water pollution and the social costs. One of the social costs being the exploitation of cheap female labor.


The reading left me wondering whether Park Chung Hee was well-liked by those living in South Korea, for it appeared to ignore the actual quality of life aspect that seems to have come at the cost of economic development. While indicators of social welfare such as education rates did significantly improve under Park’s rule, I would presume that his style of leadership may not have been popular at the time. Considering that the authoritarian regime before Park’s presidency was overthrown, I would assume the “nearly dictatorial powers” Park awarded himself after his third time being elected was unfavorable to the public. I would guess that his “heavy-handed” ways to promote rural development such as ordering rural (poor) households to replace their thatched roofs with tiles with presumably serious consequences (for they resorted to painting metal to look like the desired tiles) was unpopular to those who could not afford it as well. The whole performance principle also seemed sketchy to me, for I find it hard to believe there was not more corruption that came into play when determining which companies should be given resources to prosper. The reading explicitly states that after Park’s rule, the “quality of life had not reached the levels of developed countries,” which is surprising considering South Korea’s economic success. All in all, yes South Korea significantly improved since Park’s rule, but at what social cost?

Ella Hall

I found South Korea’s emphasis on saving, and how they went about achieving an increased savings rate, particularly interesting. In one section of the reading, it notes that savings were increased by the lack of a safety net that would have been created by government welfare programs and the use of bonuses designated specifically for saving. The government also restricted foreign travel and priced luxury goods extremely high to motivate people to save their money rather than spending it on these experiences or high-priced goods. While this restrictive control would not translate to a more democratic nation, they proved effective. Not having a safety net is something I typically would not support but, in this case, it would definitely motivate individuals to save in order to create their own personal safety net. Further, I would not have thought about restricting travel as the best way to increase savings, but it makes sense that if people aren’t allowed to spend their money on travel they would have more to save and would likely be putting it back into the South Korean economy. We have discussed in many classes the importance of savings to increase investments and capital, and I thought the ways South Korea went about it were surprising yet definitely achieved their goals.

Chaz Cunningham

I found the extensive connection between political leadership and economic growth/stagnation in this text to be interesting. The political ties between the US and South Korea were much more crucial to South Korea's economy than I had ever originally thought. It led me to think of how South Korea's military assistance was seen as an exchange for our financial aid.
One idea I really found intriguing was the chaebols. It seems like a very efficient allocation of money and effort to base the chaebols off of an evaluation of performance. However, these family-like entrepreneurships between business and state seem to form a ethical problem in terms of labor opportunity. If the top business conglomerates were all family occupied and funded by the state then how does that create fair play for other entrepreneurs not automatically tied into positions within the business? It seems like a creates a minor problem of inequity within the business sector, but maybe the family ownership aspect helps the business competitiveness.

Brad Stephenson

I found the similarities of labor conditions and the size of companies between South Korea’s and The United States’ development interesting. During the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, The United States was known for its dangerous working conditions, low wages, and long workdays. These conditions are similar to South Korea’s economic development as the country had the longest workweek of any country in the world during the 1980s. Additionally, the large conglomerates in South Korea during its economic development remind me of the “Robber Barons” that controlled the American economy during the late 1800s. These similarities are interesting because I wonder whether these outcomes are necessary to achieve rapid economic development. Cutting costs and improving efficiency is key for any industrial economy as these countries need to be competitive on the world market to increase revenue. To stay competitive, firms provide negative working conditions for their employees. Can developing countries focus both on labor conditions and rapid economic development? Can these conditions be avoided while remaining competitive in global markets? Does a focus on efficiency lead to monopolies and hinder competition?

Sally Ennis

As we have already talked a little about South Korea during class time, I really enjoyed getting to know the deeper history behind their fascinating growth story. What I first want to discuss is the role that the chaebols had in the turn of the economy. These are described as large family-owned conglomerates that later were the main powerhouses of the economy that seem like they were close to functioning as oligopolies. I particularly want to note that although these were extremely effective and not uncommon to focus on certain industries through the use of big conglomerates, the relationship between the state and the firms lead to potential ethical concerns: “Firms engaged in enterprises not favored by the development plans found it difficult to gain access to credit: nor could they receive special discounts and exemptions. Each chaebŏl leader found it necessary to work closely with the government and contribute generously to pro-government political campaign coffers and to pet projects favored by regimes of Park and his successor Chun Doo Hwan.” This unorthodox way of coercing the firms to follow governmental campaigns is how the large chaebols remained in power because no other firms were given special treatment unless they followed the certain developmental plans. I also want to mention the level of corruption that was allowed in the developmental process, as the chaebols success fluctuated based on the idea that corruption wasn’t tolerated only if it reduced the efficiency of the firms. This leads me to question how much of these policies and reforms that were put in place actually the determinants of the rapid growth, or did it stem more from behind the door deals and special relationships between the chaebols and the government? After the shift in reducing the size of the chaebols in 1997, we see that there was a brief period of extreme growth again, then it began to plateau.


In my opinion, this was the most interesting article we have been assigned to read in this class. I knew South Korea had emerged with large economic growth after 1961, but I was completely unaware of how they accomplished this feat from being a poor, agricultural-based economy to a rapidly growing , intensive capital economy. I had no idea about Chaebols or what they even were. They are quite effect in sparking up the economy. It intrigues me that families can run their own businesses and have such a high rate of success and possibly be in the Top 100 range. Another major factor for the flip of economies in SK was due to a change in government policies. When Park Chung Hee rose to power in 1961, he made economic development a priority for the nation by implementing new state planning and promoting private entrepreneurship amongst his people. I am honestly very surprised that his regime's policies worked based on previous dictator's policies failing to bring their nation prosperity (i.e. Cuba under Castro did not economic flip the switch like South Korea.) There were a variety of different programs instilled to promote growth, but ultimately I think the one that caused individuals have the most success was when the government sent them money to start and spark up their local businesses. The government also monitored how each used their money to make sure the funds were used in the right manner. This enabled small businesses to flourish and turned out to be a wonderful idea. Overall, it is pretty amazing that South Korea was able to switch their economy in such a short period of time but is also remarkable that it was under a authoritarian regime. This makes me wonder though, could a democracy do the same thing? The babysitting the government did to the funds provided to the small business owners would not happen in a country like the United States where you can spend your money freely on whatever you desire. I feel like this had a major effect on their economic growth.

Alexandra Lindsay

The Miracle of Han is a great example of the factors that can help a developing nation's economic growth, but it seems that the country's economic growth is " a product of a unique set of historical circumstances" (11). The first thing that comes to mind is the chaebols which I'm not sure would have worked in many countries for the favor of society as a whole. Although there still must have been some disparity, I believe a major reason why the disparity in South Korea didn't grow more because of chaebols is because the government launched the New Village Movement in early 1972 to promote rural development as well. This movement happened in the same time frame that chaebols, such as Hyundai motors (1967) were thriving.

Another reason why the chaebols worked well is the fact that the government encouraged competition among the sectors, rather than allowing any monopolies. This pushed the firms to explore other areas of business, rather than just their own. I would assume that with more activity and innovation, these companies created more jobs for those in urban areas. The government also monitored the companies closely in order to make sure that they were performing well. Close government control in other countries has not worked so well and has often led to corrupt leadership. I would like to know more about the companies that didn't receive the same privileges that the chaebols received. Were most of them eliminated completely from the economy or did they simply just not grow as large?

Matt Condon

I think one of the first questions that comes to mind after reading about the rapid developmental success of South Korea is whether or not the South Korean formula can be replicated. This article shows how many different factors contributed to South Korea’s rapid development, but I tend to agree with the scholars mentioned briefly in the final section that emphasize the importance of American foreign aid. Unlike the circumstances of many foreign aid cases today, the U.S. had strong incentives for making sure that South Korean society prospered, largely for socio-political reasons. The brunt of South Korea’s development took place in the Cold War, as the two world powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, ideologically divided the Korean Peninsula. Both North and South Korea were close to economic blank slates (though there was a bit more preexisting industry in the north), and Korea functioned almost as an ideological battleground between capitalism and communism. The United States needed to demonstrate the superiority of our system to the rest of the world to avoid more communist transitions, so we were eager to offer aid to South Korea. This aid came in both direct and indirect forms, through direct foreign aid that contributed greatly to South Korean GNP, as well as indirect aid through development advice from a team of American advisors and education of South Korean youths in American universities. Many of the policies that made South Korea so prosperous in the long run (especially investment in education and dispersal of technological knowledge) were bankrolled by American investment. Other reforms, like land reform, were crucial and independent of any U.S. aid, but it seems that the initial agricultural industry of South Korea would not have been sufficient to fund the reforms that propelled South Korea to sharp upward mobility. The vital importance of U.S. aid to the South Korean project makes it difficult to discern whether a similar path of development would be possible without a “big brother” figure like the United States. And without the political fuel of the Cold War, would a wealthy, developed nation like the United States have the motivation to help a struggling nation to this same degree?

Sarah Beaube

I really enjoyed reading this article. In particular, I felt that the juxtaposition between the problems that South Korea faced in the 1960s versus the 2000s was interesting. Where the history in this article begins, South Korea started off as an impoverished, agricultural state. This reminded me of our discussions at the beginning of the term about agricultural versus modern sectors. Given South Korea was a traditional, or agricultural sector, they had little chance of booming economic development without major structural changes and investments from foreign sources. Given my limited knowledge about South Korean history, I was pretty shocked at how much American aid South Korea was receiving during its development between 1946 and 1976. Obviously, those investments paid off. South Korea today has a booming economy and faces problems that only developed countries face

In class, we have briefly talked about the role of luck in development. I do wonder how much of South Korea's development was a side effect of circumstances lining up just right, to form the perfect conditions for an economic boom. Would what happened in South Korea work in a sub-Saharan African country without so much influence from countries like Japan? Probably not. This is not to say that the South Korean government was not strategic, just that they had bouts of luck that got them to be the technological powerhouse they are today. Every country's success is based partly on luck.

Kevin Thole

This article did a great job of explaining how South Korea's developmental timeline differed from other developing countries and highlighting the social costs that came with it. It's interesting to note that the high savings rate of South Korea contributed to the development of capital they needed rather than borrowed funds. However, it's important to remember that this was only possible due to a huge amount of foreign aid from the United States which makes it unlikely to be a viable strategy for other developing countries. We can't just tell other poor countries to be in a militarily strategic spot in a geopolitical rivalry between two superpowers. The political history of South Korea, including the threat of a developing North, created the conditions that pushed South Korea to grow.
I also was very interested in the chaebol system where politically-connected firms received special treatment from the government. This seems like an economically inefficient system that was only slightly redeemed by the meritocratic bureaucracy of the government and results-based reward systems. In the modern day this seems to have created too-big-to-fail firms that stifle innovation and startups.


In class we discussed how foreign aid and the U.S. loaning or putting their money in other low-income countries would be crucial to the development of low-income countries, but the U.S. and other high-income countries choose not to do this do to the interest rate risk and default risk. I find it interesting in the case of South Korea that "American aid accounted for nearly 80% of all government revenues and a substantial portion of South Korea’s entire gross national product" in the beginning of South Koreas development. If the U.S. were to do this with other countries I think a lot of the worlds poverty might be alleviated.


I was really surprised to see a military government grow so quickly. In just 35 years after the Parks took power in 1961, South Korea had gone from an agricultural economy to being recognized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as a developed nation. I guess my association with military governments and slow-growing or shrinking economies is due to Latin American countries that fall into this category. I was also interested in the U.S. and South Korea relationship. I was not aware of the role South Korea played in the Vietnam war, sending 300,0000 troops and gaining experience through contracts with the Americans and South Vietnamese. I did not realize that South Korea had a dictatorship as recently as the 1970s. I am especially surprised that this dictatorship resulted in rapid growth. It is awesome to see how different companies that are household names today started out in entirely different sectors than we know them now. The government incentives seemed to work quite well at getting companies like LG out of toothpaste and into electronics, a huge shift. I wonder to what extent South Korea can serve as a roadmap for other countries in similar situations. I think that it really cannot as many of the drivers of growth required luck to work out. Keeping rural and urban incomes similar during a period of huge growth is impressive, and I would be curious to see if this could be applied to other developing nations as well.

Connor Verrett

I learned a lot from this article. I really did not realize that South Korea was for a long time a military dictatorship like its counterpart in the North. A lot of times in class we have discussed often how institutions are required in developing nations to implement a policy that leads to development. I am surprised that South Korea was able to do these without democratic institutions.

However, I think this case study may lack external validity. We have seen so many other countries that have tried to develop with military juntas in power that have failed due to corruption or revolutions. I am shocked that the economy was still able to thrive after the assassination of the president. I think Korea got lucky. The country would not have had that much access to US aid had it not been in such a strategically important location. South Korea got that aid because the US wanted a foothold in South East Asia. The reading mentioned briefly that foreign investors likely looked past the politically volatile landscape due to the presence of so many American troops there to provide security. While many of the economic policies employed by the government worked, I think trying to apply these to other countries may be short-sighted due to South Korea's unique position.

Tommy MacCowatt

I thought the most interesting aspect of this paper was the South Korean’s focus on developing the technical skills of their people. Through the expansion of education in South Korea, they were able to learn import skills early on. This coupled with the attractiveness of working in the government of South Korea allowed them to hire strong candidates who continued to develop a new economy. Another interesting factor was the lack of foreign investment early on in their development. Smartly, Park wanted to establish a strong economy in South Korea without the help of other countries. After the first 5-year plan had been successful, Park encouraged the growth of foreign investment which was previously untapped.

I also found the correlation between economic and social transformation very fascinating. It is well known that urbanization occurs when economies become more technologically advanced, but South Korea saw an especially rapid urbanization. Over the 20-year period from 1960 to 1980 the percentage of farmers in South Korea dropped almost 40%. I found this surprising because urbanization can be a long process and convincing people to leave their farms for urban areas is not always easy.

Mark Natiello

I really enjoyed reading the Miracle on the Han and South Korea’s ascension into a developed nation. It’s always fascinating and exciting to hear about an economy that escaped a cycle of underdevelopment because it is almost always a net good for the people living there and the rest of the world. I was really impressed with how diversified South Korea’s economy became with some policy changes especially with North Korea gaining control of most of the industry, mining, and electric power. Once an export-centric economy of rice, seaweed, iron, and graphite, it expanded into steel, machinery, petrochemicals, and cars. As we talked about in class, land reform and education reform are two policy changes that can help get developp9ing economies up and running. We see a perfect example of this in Korea with their large investments and expansion of primary, secondary, and higher education which helped build the best-educated workforce at their income level. I was really intrigued by their land reform policies as they seemed fairly aggressive since they forcibly took the majority of the and from the top 3 percent. I’m very curious how this strategy would pay off in democratic republics or if it is really only successful in a military-led government.

It was interesting to see that foreign aid from the US actually hurt their economy. Although they provided much-needed reconstruction help after the war, South Korea became far too dependent on them and caused corruption within the government. It’s difficult to understand when another country should interfere with another nation’s economy because, on one hand, foreign investment is often a crucial factor in helping with growth and development, but it is also possible that they are looking after their own interests, bring in corruption, and become too big of a crutch for the developing country. I’d like to compare different nations that experience a lot of outside interference in the economy and what the outcome was.

Teddy Bentley

What is most impressive to me is that South Korea was able to implement such tremendous economic growth without any valuable exports. They did not have many valuable economic resources but still were able to become such an economic success story. While a lot of the success early on was a factor of foreign aid, this story definitely provides hope for other undeveloped countries to create the same success. All that South Korea did was allocate resources correctly and their investment in human capital, namely education, spurted their growth perfectly. It goes to show that just solely investing in your human capital when an economy seems hopeless is a very effective way to turn the entire situation around. The statistic comparing Korea’s income per capita to that of Haiti was very interesting when you start to think about what could be for a country like Haiti. Without many natural resources, there is still considerable hope for your economy when you allocate resources correctly. Unfortunately, factors like corruption get in the way of this and that was actually very surprising because South Korea was run by a military regime when they started the economic development. That leader easily could have prioritized his self-interests and not given back to the country in the way he did. This just goes to show the amazing effect of proper allocation of resources and smart long-term investments. Overall, this is a fascinating success story and one that others should mimic in order to achieve economic growth and prosperity.

The comments to this entry are closed.