Why did this "build" or strategy for lack of a better word work so well for Korea? They mention other countries that have adopted this model but haven't seen the phenomenal success Korea has seen over the past decades. What was the secret sauce?
I think the book on development I'd most recommend on development in general is Gambling on Development but for what exactly South Korea did How Asia Works has the details.
Thanks for reccos
2. Even if the US were not involved - If you think Russia invading Ukraine is a debacle, don't think too much about what North Korea trying to invade South Korea would look like.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is actually a good example. Just the other way around. What is happening to Russia is exactly what happens when you neglect your industry and population to the point that you no longer have enough of an advantage in equipment or people willing to fight. Something South Korea can't afford.
It just has the notable advantages of:
1. Being incredibly motivated to fight an existential defensive war.
2. Being the recipient of every surplus NATO armament under the sun. Its industrial capacity for war-making isn't located in within its borders.
It's true that Russia has significantly neglected its industry, but Ukraine has... Done the exact same thing. In a worse way, even - as despite inheriting a lion's share of Soviet industry, it didn't do anything with it.
(And to cycle back to North Korea, I'd like to point out that the economic rot in it is so deep, it's not even capable of feeding itself.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
They’ve literally murdered people in DMZ and have sent special forces multiple times to assassinate presidents. Not to mention artillery fire on a village fairly recently.
Nowadays no one thinks NK could invade but it was certainly a plausible threat until 80s.
But the one thing South Korea had over all of them: the USA. The ROK was a US garrison state, and a military dictatorship well into the 80s. They were a major staging ground and supplier for the Vietnam war, and billions of dollars flowed through companies like Hyundai, growing them into industrial giants. The USA was even directly paying ROK soldiers who participated in Vietnam. The USA was eager to maintain a toe-hold on the Asian continent, and provided active support. When the "Arsenal of Democracy" needs a local supplier, you can create a lot of infrastructure.
The support from the USA/NATO also included friendly trade deals despite the political cost domestically -- remember Toyota and Hyundai gutting the fat and lazy big-3 in the 80s? The cold-warriors wanted to showcase the capitalist power of wealth creation for the region to emulate, in contrast to the creeping communism of the post-war, anti-colonial era. The USA was much more invested in the success of ROK than the average independent Asian country.
As for Indonesia, geography is much of it. It is the 5th most populous country in the world, over thousands (and thousands!) of islands, speaking hundreds of languages. Just transportation and coordination costs can explain much of their troubles industrializing. Also note that they were never occupied by the Americans during WWII. Instead, they were forced to fight a bloody independence fight against the Netherlands which didn't make any friends in NATO. They then dabbled with the Soviets which certainly didn't help them long term economically, and it meant that they were frozen out of the post-war alliances. The USA was happy to leave a brutal dictator in place as long as Suharto kept the communists out. Social and industrial development of the bulk of Indonesia served no cold-war aims.
- The Vietnam War and the ‘Miracle of East Asia’ - https://instruct.uwo.ca/economics/317b-570/keunhoparkclayton...
Funny how I have read the same argument regarding Japan and the Korean War... (I'm not saying it is wrong, just that I find the similitudes interesting)
https://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Periodicals/De...
Sometimes the US wants to strip-mine a country of its natural resources and use it as a source of cheap labor, in which case it will not adopt a favorable trading relationship. This makes export oriented industrialization an uphill battle.
Sometimes it wants to build up its industry so that it is militarily self sufficient. Japan and Korea fall into the latter camp.
1. Countries in colder climate are generally more economically prosperous. South Korea is colder (though hot in summer) than S/E Asian countries.
2. South Koreans have always been overzealous about education.
3. South Korea is ethnically more homogenous than S/E Asian countries. People have been comfortable with idea of putting interests of the large group (i.e. nation) before that of the individuals.
Singapore and Taiwan are very much so. And Singapore is right on the equator.
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/BurkeHsiangMiguel_F...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8477297/Why-colder-...
the war was supposed to sink them according to european leaders and yet they are stronger than ever.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that this factor is conducive to forming empires, not just cultures. Of the four classical cradles of civilization (China, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia), only half fit this winter criterion, so it's clearly not a prohibitive factor for the formation of a civilization; perhaps just for its technological development and dominion over others.