[KS] Re: To the Observer of Korean Politics

[Tae-Gyun Park]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Dear lsits,

Although I did not participate at the discussion and did not read all of
assertions at the beginning, I would like to add something to explain Korean
economic growth. 

What I want to add is the role of bureaucrats and the formation of social
discourse in the 1950s. There were many economic bureaucrats who went to study
abroad since the late 1940s. Of course, they had a educational background in
the colonial period. But the experiences in the U.S.(universities and the
institutions) and the imports of the western economic development ideas are
more important than those in the colonial period. 

They could join with the government that had to carry out economic plan for
the sake of rationalization of its illegal coup and with the U.S. that attempt
new policies toward the Third World in the Kennedy administration in the early
1960s. 

Besides, the foreign policy in the Kennedy Administration was quite different
from the Eisenhower. That's another key point. 

My dissertation is related to these issues, but it's written in Korean.

Tae-Gyun Park.
Visiting Professor, The School of International and Area Studies
Seoul National University

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dennis Hart <DHART at stark.kent.edu>
To: <korean-studies at iic.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: To the Observer of Korean Politics


> hello,
> 
> in your post, you point to the relationships between the inflow of 
> foreign capital, rise of industry, confucianism and democracy in 
> south korea. you touch on a number of interesteing topics that 
> have long been areas for debate within korean studies. 
> 
> however, in your analysis you might also try to account for the near 
> total failure of foreign aid and confucianism to produce either 
> sustained industrial growth or democracy under the syngman rhee 
> era only a few years prior to the "miracle"?
> 
> that is, it seems that your hypothesis on confucianism does NOT 
> explain the 1950's. nor does it explain how many observers at the 
> time said that confucianism's "traditional beliefs" actually 
> slowed/inhibited democratization.
> 
> further, dispite "confucianism" the syngman rhee regime was 
> notoriously corrupt. so, unless you argue that south korea was 
> somehow "less confucian" in the 1950s than the 1960s, i am not 
> sure hwo well your argument holds up.
> 
> finally, perhaps you would want to read the work by professor kim 
> eun mee out of USC. she makes a very compelling case for NOT 
> considering confucianism as you did in your post.
> 
> dennis