not every threat jeopardises national survival,and not every threat to national survival can make the state commit consistently to industrialisation Threat and threat perception There is an existing literature on the relationship between military tension and economic development in general,and in Northeast Asia in particular.One body of work has focused on the connection between war,state making and the rise of capi- talism in Europe.5 These comparative historical studies argue that the rise of organic states and capitalism in Europe was due to centuries of military competition among European countries.Persistent military competition and interstate rivalry in Europe, so the argument goes,created centralised states and the strong economic founda- tions essential for military success. There are also studies of the relationship between military threat and industrialisa- tion in Northeast Asia.Several analyses point out that political survival under external threat is the main concern of the developmental states in Northeast Asia, and that industrialisation is a means rather than a goal Perhaps the only study that gives a detailed account of the security-growth link in Northeast Asia is Jung-en Woo's 1991 book,Race to the Swift.7 Woo argues that security concerns were the main force pushing the South Korean state to mobilise financial resources for rapid industrialisation.She divides the Cold War into different periods and examines,in particular,how security concerns were related to economic strategy in the 197os. Her 1998 article compares Taiwan to South Korea,arguing that national security was directly tied to the state-led nature of development in both cases.s A general question in the threat-development literature is why do some threats and wars strengthen the state and promote economic development while others do not? Gregory Kasza argues that the common weakness of studies in this field is that they attribute equal significance to all military threats and wars.In fact,different military threats and wars affect state formation and commitment to development in different ways.It is difficult for a country to consider long-term objectives like industrialisa- tion while actively engaged in war.Equally,industrialisation is not an automatic response for all countries under threat.Precisely how a country responds to a mili- tary threat depends on how it perceives the danger.The literature reviewed above tends to ignore this crucial issue.20 By introducing threat perception into the relationship between threats and developmental states and their economic policies, this study departs from previous analysesConflict, Security & Development 2:1 2002 10 not every threat jeopardises national survival, and not every threat to national survival can make the state commit consistently to industrialisation. Threat and threat perception There is an existing literature on the relationship between military tension and economic development in general, and in Northeast Asia in particular. One body of work has focused on the connection between war, state making and the rise of capi￾talism in Europe.15 These comparative historical studies argue that the rise of organic states and capitalism in Europe was due to centuries of military competition among European countries. Persistent military competition and interstate rivalry in Europe, so the argument goes, created centralised states and the strong economic founda￾tions essential for military success. There are also studies of the relationship between military threat and industrialisa￾tion in Northeast Asia. Several analyses point out that political survival under external threat is the main concern of the developmental states in Northeast Asia, and that industrialisation is a means rather than a goal.16 Perhaps the only study that gives a detailed account of the security–growth link in Northeast Asia is Jung-en Woo’s 1991 book, Race to the Swift.17 Woo argues that security concerns were the main force pushing the South Korean state to mobilise financial resources for rapid industrialisation. She divides the Cold War into different periods and examines, in particular, how security concerns were related to economic strategy in the 1970s. Her 1998 article compares Taiwan to South Korea, arguing that national security was directly tied to the state-led nature of development in both cases.18 A general question in the threat–development literature is why do some threats and wars strengthen the state and promote economic development while others do not? Gregory Kasza argues that the common weakness of studies in this field is that they attribute equal significance to all military threats and wars.19 In fact, different military threats and wars affect state formation and commitment to development in different ways. It is difficult for a country to consider long-term objectives like industrialisa￾tion while actively engaged in war. Equally, industrialisation is not an automatic response for all countries under threat. Precisely how a country responds to a mili￾tary threat depends on how it perceives the danger. The literature reviewed above tends to ignore this crucial issue.20 By introducing threat perception into the relationship between threats and developmental states and their economic policies, this study departs from previous analyses