1270 WORLD DEVELOPMENT spective,especially tracing its origins back to its Korea had competing historical legacies:e.g.,there Japanese colonial lineage.this neglect is unfortunate. was the distant legacy of Choson (i.e.of Korea under For example,few "developmentalists."if any, the rule of Yi dynasty)of corrupt court politics at the ascribe much significance to the continuities that link apex;then there were indigenous revolutionary ten- colonial and posteolonial Korea.This is certainly so dencies that found expression in North Korea;and among the more strictly economic analysts of South there was the possibility of considerable American Korean growth experience:however,somewhat sur- influence.Moreover.completely new paths could prisingly and unfortunately.this problem also charac- have been charted.Subsequent decisions were thus terizes the works of several institutionally sensitive critical in putting South Korea on a path that reestab- scholars of South Korea.Among the latter.some dis- lished historical continuities.Nevertheless,it is diffi- cuss the colonial period but quickly conclude that the cult to imagine South Korea adopting a growth path impact was not of lasting significance (e.g..Jones and that it did without a deeply influential lapanese colo- Sakong,1980,pp.22-37).others deny the contribu- nial past. tions of this past altogether.and yet others virtually More specifically.I trace below the colonial ori- ignore it.presumably because of a view that signifi- gins of three patterns that we now readily associate as cant changes in South Korean economy began only elements of the South Korean"model."First,I discuss after the adoption of an "export-led model of develop- how the Korean state under the Japanese influence ment"in the early 1960s.5 Korean scholarship on was transformed from a relatively corrupt and ineffec- Korea has its own,albeit understandable,blind spots: tive social institution into a highly authoritarian, the nationalist impulse often leads to a denial of any penetrating organization.capable of simultaneously continuity between colonial and postcolonial periods. controlling and transforming the Korean socicty.This lest the contemporary achievements be viewed as a is followed by an analysis of a second pattern.namely product of a much disliked colonial rule.Only a the new state's production-oriented alliances with the handful of Korean specialists,especially those with a dominant classes,an alliance that buttressed the strong historical bent,have understood and empha- state's capacity to both control and transform. sized the Japanese colonial roots of the more recent. Relatedly,it is also important to take note of the struc- high-growth Korean political cconomy.Building on tural changes in the economy:not only did the colo- the insights of this last group of Korean specialists.I nial economy experience steady growth and industri- attempt in this essay to reinterpret some specific his- alization.but it also became rather heavily torical materials with the hope of deriving general export-oriented,including exports of manufactured lessons of interest to scholars of comparative and products.Finally,there was the third pattern of brutal international development. repression and systematic control of the lower classes The argument below is that Japanese colonial in both the cities and the countryside.The cumulative influence on Korea.in 1905-45,was decisive in shap- impact of these state-class configurations was to help ing a political economy that later evolved into the create a framework for the evolution of a high-growth high-growth South Korean path to development. political economy.I also,toward the end of this dis- Japanese colonialism differed in important respects cussion,briefly suggest-though not develop,leav- from the colonialism of European powers.As late ing that for another essay-how these patterns con- developers,the Japanese made extensive use of state tinued into subsequent periods. power for their own economic development,and they It is important to reiterate that the main task of this used the same state power to pry open and transform paper is not to set the historical record straight.That is Korea in a relatively short period.Japanese colonial for historians of Korea:they are already busy doing so impact was thus more intense.more brutal and deeply and I am only building on some of their work.Given architectonic;it also left Korea with three and a half the importance of the South Korean case in the con- decades of economic growth (the average,annual temporary discourse on development,it is important growth rate in production was more than 3%)and a that developmentalists understand what country spe- relatively advanced level of industrialization (nearly ciafists already know:I thus hope to reinterpret and 35%of Korea's "national production"in 1940 origi- synthesize some specific materials with general impli- nated in mining and manufacturing).*While there cations.Three sets of general ideas will be debated via were important discontinuities in the postcolonial the historical materials.First.there are Korea-related period,the grooves that Japanese colonialism carved comparative questions.For example,how much on the Korean social soil cut deep.The decade and a choice does a developing country really have when half following the departure of the lapanese was at adopting a specific development strategy:ie.to what least chaotic,and often tragic.When the dust settled, extent was South Korea a beneficiary of its historical however.South Korea under Park Chung-Hee fell inheritance,as distinct from creating anew a high- back into the grooves of an earlier origin and traversed growth.export-oriented "model of development?" along them.well into the 1980s.Of course,this was Closely related is the issue of transferability of the not inevitable:historical continuities seldom are. Korean "model"across national boundaries:if the1270 WORLD DEVELOPMENT spective, especially tracing its origins back to its Japanese colonial lineage. this neglect is unfortunate. For example, few “developmentalists,” if any, ascribe much significance to the continuities that link colonial and postcolonial Korea. This is certainly so among the more strictly economic analysts of South Korean growth experience;? however, somewhat sur￾prisingly and unfortunately. this problem also charac￾terizes the works of several institutionally sensitive scholars of South Korea. Among the latter, some dis￾cuss the colonial period but quickly conclude that the impact was not of lasting significance (e.g., Jones and Sakong, 1980, pp. 22-37). others deny the contribu￾tions of this past altogether? and yet others virtually ignore it, presumably because of a view that signifi￾cant changes in South Korean economy began only after the adoption of an “export-led model of develop￾ment” in the early 1960~.~ Korean scholarship on Korea has its own, albeit understandable, blind spots; the nationalist impulse often leads to a denial of any continuity between colonial and postcolonial periods, lest the contemporary achievements be viewed as a product of a much disliked colonial rule.” Only a handful of Korean specialists, especially those with a strong historical bent, have understood and empha￾sized the Japanese colonial roots of the more recent. high-growth Korean political economy.’ Building on the insights of this last group of Korean specialists, I attempt in this essay to reinterpret some specific his￾torical materials with the hope of derivjing general lessons of interest to scholars of comparative and international development. The argument below is that Japanese colonial influence on Korea, in 1905-45, was decisive in shap￾ing a political economy that later evolved into the high-growth South Korean path to development. Japanese colonialism differed in important respects from the colonialism of European powers. As late developers, the Japanese made extensive use of state power for their own economic development, and they used the same state power to pry open and transform Korea in a relatively short period. Japanese colonial impact was thus more intense, more brutal and deeply architectonic; it also left Korea with three and a half decades of economic growth (the average, annual growth rate in production was more than 3%) and a relatively advanced level of industrialization (nearly 35% of Korea’s “national production” in I940 origi￾nated in mining and manufacturing).* While there were important discontinuities in the postcolonial period, the grooves that Japanese colonialism carved on the Korean social soil cut deep. The decade and a half following the departure of the Japanese was at least chaotic, and often tragic. When the dust settled, however, South Korea under Park Chung-Hee fell back into the grooves of an earlier origin and traversed along them, well into the 1980s. Of course, this was not inevitable: historical continuities seldom are. Korea had competing historical legacies: e.g., there was the distant legacy of Chosen (i.e. of Korea under the rule of Yi dynasty) of corrupt court politics at the apex; then there were indigenous revolutionary ten￾dencies that found expression in North Korea; and there was the possibility of considerable American influence. Moreover, completely new paths could have been charted. Subsequent decisions were thus critical in putting South Korea on a path that reestab￾lished historical continuities. Nevertheless, it is diffi￾cult to imagine South Korea adopting a growth path that it did without a deeply influential Japanese colo￾nial past. More specifically, I trace below the colonial ori￾gins of three patterns that we now readily associate as elements of the South Korean “model.” First, I discuss how the Korean state under the Japanese influence was transformed from a relatively corrupt and ineffec￾tive social institution into a highly authoritarian, penetrating organization, capable of simultaneously controlling and transforming the Korean society. This is followed by an analysis of a second pattern, namely, the new state’s production-oriented alliances with the dominant classes. an alliance that buttressed the state’s capacity to both control and transform. Relatedly, it is also important to take note of the struc￾tural changes in the economy: not only did the colo￾nial economy experience steady growth and industri￾alization, but it also became rather heavily export-oriented, including exports of manufactured products. Finally, there was the third pattern of brutal repression and systematic control of the lower classes in both the cities and the countryside. The cumulative impact of these state-class configurations was to help create a framework for the evolution of a high-growth political economy. I also, toward the end of this dis￾cussion, briefly suggest - though not develop, leav￾ing that for another essay - how these patterns con￾tinued into subsequent periods. It is important to reiterate that the main task of this paper is not to set the historical record straight. That is for historians of Korea; they are already busy doing so and 1 am only building on some of their work. Given the importance of the South Korean case in the con￾temporary discourse on development, it is important that developmentalists understand what country spe￾cialists already know; I thus hope to reinterpret and synthesize some specific materials with general impli￾cations. Three sets of general ideas will be debated via the historical materials. First, there are Korea-related comparative questions. For example, how much choice does a developing country really have when adopting a specific development strategy: i.e. to what extent was South Korea a beneficiary of its historical inheritance. as distinct from creating anew a high￾growth. export-oriented “model of development‘!” Closely related is the issue of transferability of the Korean “model” across national boundaries: if the