Brazil And South Korea PDF Download

This is a comparative historical study of the development experiences of South Korea and Brazil during periods of military authoritarian rule. The two countries were under military rule during comparable periods of time: South Korea, 1961-88 and Brazil, 1964-85. The years under study are divided into three sub-periods: before the first oil crisis, between the two oil crises, and after the second oil crisis. Military authoritarians in the two countries tried to achieve rapid economic growth in the context of political stability. They met, however, with various internal and external obstacles and challenges. This dissertation asks how South Korea and Brazil responded and reacted, politically and economically, to changing domestic and external conditions, with what consequences, and why. In order to answer these questions, this dissertation identifies political economy models that were established in the two countries in the three succeeding sub-periods by describing and explaining how state authority, political dynamics, and economic strategies were interrelated and interacted. The possibilities and limits of the models are also discussed. This dissertation argues that the emergence of a state which is autonomous from major socio-political groupings and industrial classes and administratively and financially capable is a necessary condition for sustained Third World development. Contrary to existing neo-Marxist and statist arguments about the state, Third World states are often neither autonomous nor capable. Rather, the lack of autonomy and/or capacity is the fundamental source of many serious problems in the process of Third World development. Thus it is pointed out that one has to examine the nature of a specific state, instead of assuming state autonomy and capacity, if one really wants to "take the state seriously" in the explanation of political dynamics and developmental trajectories. This dissertation also points out that military authoritarian rule does not necessarily increase state autonomy and capacity but tends to reduce the social, political, and institutional bases of state autonomy and capacity, jeopardizing the long-term prospects for sound national development.