Post on 27-Dec-2015
Authoritarian developmentalEconomic development Improving citizen capability (human
development)Elite coalitions with local capitalistsCoherent, effective bureaucracies
1950s: Land reform a key early success Military coup (1961) start of authoritarian,
developmental regime under Park Main base of support – military Forged alliance with capitalists to promote
industrialization, economic development Unions repressed Anti-communist propaganda Elections rigged in favor of Democratic Republican
Party (DRP), which had structural and financial advantage
Near-defeat by opposition initiated harsher authoritarianism and repression in 1970s
Military ruled until 1987 Ended with protests/demonstrations by students,
workers, and middle class (created by regime’s developmental policies) demands for democratization
Industrial policy State-led industrialization
Control over banks and assistance to particular industries/firms Huge, family-owned conglomerates (chaebol) (e.g.,
Daewoo, Hyundai, LG, Samsung) became competitive through industrial policy
Did not lead to inefficient firms, theft of state funds Profitable industries required to repel North Capable bureaucrats in charge of economic
planning (with real autonomy) Mutual interdependence between regime and firms
Social policy Social spending aimed at advancing
industrialization agenda (e.g., education) and legitimation
Military (and Korean Central Intelligence Agency) – suppression, indoctrination
Economic institutionsEconomic planning board; 5-year plans
Political parties (electoral machines; not programmatic)Façade of democracy
Democratic transition (1987) Authoritarian developmental regime left mixed legacy
Strong economy; competent, effective bureaucracy; vibrant civil society
Feeble political parties; powerful corporations; increasing income inequality
New political cleavages Division over how to approach North Korea Social class Older and younger (materialist, post-materialist)
New policies Expansion of social spending (through cross-class coalition of
workers and farmers, social movements, middle class activists); health care, unemployment, job training
Strengthened democratic institutions More open elections; new political parties; more powerful
legislature, judiciary Still few programmatic political parties
Predatory authoritarianNo economic/human developmentElites rely on narrow coalitions
Pursue policies that enrich themselves and narrow network of supporters
Bureaucracies ineffective Widespread corruption and patronage
British colonial legacy Weak sense of nationhood “Divide and rule” made ethnicity main line of
division/political cleavage Personal rule by “big men” rather than strong
institutions 4 attempts at democratic rule, currently 4th
Republic (long periods of military rule) Predatory regimes characterized by patron-
client relations Ruler Big men military/business
people/regional leaders clients (typically of same ethnic group)
Patronage/spoils = oil revenues, budget, contracts
divide and rule/repression
Policies Leaders main goal to accumulate wealth, not promote
human development Economic development enriches elite
Institutions Government bureaucracies staffed through patronage
appointments Post-predatory regime
Transition to electoral democracy (1999) Obstacles to democratic consolidation, human
development Ethnic/religious cleavages Patron-client politics Weak institutions remain obstacles
Struggle over balance of power between central government and states; division of oil revenues; secular vs. shari’a law
Developmental democraticCommitment to improving capabilities of
poorer citizensEconomic growth/development through
market-oriented policiesPolitical parties build broad coalitions of
support Support policies that appeal to large groups of
votersEffective/professional (merit-based)
bureaucracies
Post-Pinochet Central cleavage is class
Conflict between landed and business elites (interested in maintaining wealth) and lower and middle classes (interested in more equitable distribution of income)
Concertacion leaders have attempted to balance interests of classes in a way that promotes capabilities of poorest groups Assured elite by agreeing to maintain free-market policies, but
with higher corporate and income taxes, and concessions to unions
Workers assured government will increase wages and bargaining power (tempered by need for international competitiveness) and improved access to health care, education, pension
Success due to: Gradual reforms (in consultation with opposition) Programmatic parties and business and labor federations Highly competent civil service Broad appeal among middle and working classes
Policies Economic growth Improved access to education and health care
for the poor Strengthened democracy Yet, income inequality remains high; business
class remains powerful Institutions
Limitation on ability of government to improve citizens’ capability even more; aspects designed to ensure conservative control over legislature Binomial electoral system Appointment of senators (ended in 2005) Super majority (3/5s) form amendments
Legislature and judiciary increasingly independent
Fragmented democraticLeaders form coalitions dominated by large
farmers, big business, parts of middle classPolitical parities are electoral machines
Leaders rely on patronage, populism, identity politics
Civil service (bureaucracy) mixed Competent officials Highly politicized agencies headed by patronage
appointments
Developments post-WWII Rapid industrialization, increasing conflict between social
classes (landed elites/business interests and working class/peasants)
Military seized power in 1964 (ruled until 1985) Pursued growth through state-led industrialization
Promoted industries; created state-owned enterprises Severely repressed working class and pressure for increased social
spending for poor Social class most important political cleavage
Extremely high income inequality; even higher wealth inequality; extreme inequalities in health care, safety, access to education
Race increasingly so given intersection between race and class Fragmented political organizations
State corporatism used to divide working class (fragmented unions), dilute working class political power
Political parties fragmented Widespread clientelism; need for broad coalitions/patronage to
govern
Recent presidents (Cardoso, Lula) have pursued policies aimed at promoting capabilities of poorest citizens Prevention of severe economic crises Movement away from state-led development
toward market system Successful in enacting increased social
spending aimed at promoting citizens’ capabilities (health care, education) and affirmative action
Challenges Significant room for improvement in citizens’
capabilities
Fragmented party system Fragmented bureaucracy (without
autonomy and/or effectiveness) Legislature fragmented
Rural bias in lower Chamber of Deputies Open list PR increases personal/pork barrel
politics and reduces party discipline Federal system Fragmentation of system makes it difficult
for social democratic presidents to make significant strides in promoting developmental democratic regime Politics of pork prevail over politics of class Dominance of elite interests (business, land
owners)