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)