That article makes me think that corruption is (at best) a zero sum game, but maybe in an export oriented economy the losers could be outside the country.
The losers are inside the country, but a rising tide allegedly lifts all boats, and the drag of corruption on a quickly-growing economy still results in net growth. And when there's net growth, and a lot of it, the sore losers can be brushed aside.
The secret to a quickly-growing economy is government investment in infrastructure, grueling work hours in high-margin industries[1], and an export focus. And, if Korea[2], China, and Vietnam are any indicators, a brutal and repressive dictatorship can't hurt.
The Park government provided these capitalists promotional privileges—particularly cheap credit from state-owned banks and monopoly privileges in local markets—to grow their firms
Sounds to me like the losers were Koreans whose businesses were crushed by an unequal playing field.
Had there been true competition, who is to say there wouldn't be more thriving and innovative businesses in Korea?
Certainly smaller businesses in Korea do poorly. Maybe there is a generation of startups we are missing.
Samsung though, is leading the world in a number of areas. It makes processor chips, it makes flash memory. I think it's the only important cell phone brand other than Apple that isn't based in China. It wins in areas where (say) Sony fails.
People in the US might ask why there are no heavy forges in the US but there are heavy forges in Korea? ASML not withstanding, Europeans would like to have an electronics industry. Anybody who thinks they'd like to subsidize some business and turn it into a world beater would probably be envious of Korea.
That said, I understand that many young Koreans perceive the country to be "Hell Joseon" and immigrate to places like the US where they perceive you can get ahead if you don't get hired by Samsung. Contrast that to Japan which is said by some to be economically and culturally stagnant but doesn't have a mass exodus.
The strange thing with Sony is that they don't even seem to try in the mobile market. For years they're putting out phones that are overpriced, have very poor software support duration and focus on gimmicky features like 4K screens that are almost never actually used as such.
As a result they occupy only a tiny niche of the market but they keep going on as they are. Like they don't even care.
It's a shame because they made great stuff. My Z4 Tablet with its Bluetooth laptop dock is the most useful mini laptop I've ever had. Never saw a successor though :'(
That seems likely, on the other hand, without putting their thumbs on the scales, it's possible that no company would have been a break-out like many of the Chaebols.
So maybe the question is: level playing filed where everyone has equal access to capital and labor but achievement is limited, or do you want an uneven playing field but which results in economic juggernauts which leave small businesses behind?
Comments
That article makes me think that corruption is (at best) a zero sum game, but maybe in an export oriented economy the losers could be outside the country.
The losers are inside the country, but a rising tide allegedly lifts all boats, and the drag of corruption on a quickly-growing economy still results in net growth. And when there's net growth, and a lot of it, the sore losers can be brushed aside.
The secret to a quickly-growing economy is government investment in infrastructure, grueling work hours in high-margin industries[1], and an export focus. And, if Korea[2], China, and Vietnam are any indicators, a brutal and repressive dictatorship can't hurt.
[1] Your country won't get rich growing peas.
[2] Pre-1987.
Sounds to me like the losers were Koreans whose businesses were crushed by an unequal playing field.
Had there been true competition, who is to say there wouldn't be more thriving and innovative businesses in Korea?
Certainly smaller businesses in Korea do poorly. Maybe there is a generation of startups we are missing.
Samsung though, is leading the world in a number of areas. It makes processor chips, it makes flash memory. I think it's the only important cell phone brand other than Apple that isn't based in China. It wins in areas where (say) Sony fails.
People in the US might ask why there are no heavy forges in the US but there are heavy forges in Korea? ASML not withstanding, Europeans would like to have an electronics industry. Anybody who thinks they'd like to subsidize some business and turn it into a world beater would probably be envious of Korea.
That said, I understand that many young Koreans perceive the country to be "Hell Joseon" and immigrate to places like the US where they perceive you can get ahead if you don't get hired by Samsung. Contrast that to Japan which is said by some to be economically and culturally stagnant but doesn't have a mass exodus.
The strange thing with Sony is that they don't even seem to try in the mobile market. For years they're putting out phones that are overpriced, have very poor software support duration and focus on gimmicky features like 4K screens that are almost never actually used as such.
As a result they occupy only a tiny niche of the market but they keep going on as they are. Like they don't even care.
It's a shame because they made great stuff. My Z4 Tablet with its Bluetooth laptop dock is the most useful mini laptop I've ever had. Never saw a successor though :'(
That seems likely, on the other hand, without putting their thumbs on the scales, it's possible that no company would have been a break-out like many of the Chaebols.
So maybe the question is: level playing filed where everyone has equal access to capital and labor but achievement is limited, or do you want an uneven playing field but which results in economic juggernauts which leave small businesses behind?
Given that Korea has outperformed most or all comparable nations, that seems implausible.