It
is interesting to find that only some political
economists emphasize the fact that Japanese colonialism
in Korea played a large part in the development of a
high-growth economy. In both readings we get to see
that Japanese colonialism greatly differed from European
colonialism. In one way, this is because European
colonialism rarely introduced heavy industry into the
economy, or even pushed the economy with such a heavy
hand. As well, Japan left Korea with a relatively high
level of industrialization, not something we commonly
see with European colonialism. In Kohli's article we see
that Japan came into Korea at the very beginning of its
colonial rule and transformed the state, not just when
creating speedy economic growth. I liked this article
in that Kohli took a very systematic approach to writing
it, noting the many steps it took for Korea to
industrialize, as well as noting extensively the extent
to which Japan played a role. Bruce Cumings' article
was different in that it looked more towards Japan,
Taiwan, and Korea. In his article, he not only looks at
Japan as a colonizer, but also an industrializer. I
think that in both of the readings, it is amazing that
each of the countries examined were able to
industrialize so quickly. Northeast Asia industrialized
in only decades, whereas it's taken the rest of the
world centuries to do the same. In response to this, it
is important to note the argument around the state's
role in economic development, what Atul Kohli says is
"the extent to which state intervention was 'market
conforming' versus 'market distorting' or, to use a
related set of concepts, the extent to which the state ...