Much of the academic discussion about the political economy of development has turned upon the contrast between East Asia and Latin America. East Asian growth, embodied especially in the case of South Korea, has been dynamic and powerful and is seen largely as the result of the development of an export-industrialization economy. Latin American growth, on the other hand, has been sluggish and is seen largely as the result of the development of an import-substitution economy. Yet, both South Korea and the Latin American countries had begun as relatively undeveloped areas of the globe in the mid-1900s and were subject to many of.the same external influences--namely, American military and economic intervention--attempting to shape the future political and economic courses of these regions. The question that arises is why have South Korea and other East Asian nations developed in a far different fashion than Latin American countries?
This research examines the course of political and economic development in South Korea and select Latin American countries and analyzes why these two regions have pursued different paths to development. Specifically, the explanatory model of dependency theory, which has gained prominence in accounting for the lack of development in Latin America, is contrasted for its relevance to development in South Korea. This study finds that although dependency theory is a very useful model for explaining development, or more appropriately, the lack of development in Latin America, it is not a useful model for explaining development in South Korea. Development in South Korea, and several East Asian nations, has been affected by numerous unique factors, such as a strong state, economic policies and culture, that have created very different results from the Latin American experience, despite the fact that both regions have struggled to prosper under a similar American sphere of influence.
In order to fully und...