Korea and Taiwan's Developmental States

As we all know, the Korean and Taiwanese states were successful in utilizing the developmental state model. Many factors contributed to its success which is identical in both countries. The successful state intervention is one of the main contributors to both states of Taiwan and South Korea (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003; Khan, 2004; Amsden, 1985; Chibber, 1999). The state's involvement in the economy by its policies, subsidies, control over the resources, discipline over its capitalists (particularly in the case of South Korea), and distribution paved way to fast economic development. As Andersson and Gunnarsson (2003) noted, policy initiatives should focus on creating the initial conditions for generating "comparative advantage in the new activities one wants to promote at a given point in time while improving the productivity one wants to retain." The Taiwanese state improved first their agricultural sector which provided surplus that was utilized on improving their Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) (Amsden, 1985; Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003). On the other hand, the Korean state disciplined its industrial class (chaebol): gave them access to resources and, in return, the state has an authority on its investment decisions (Chibber, 1999). This initiated their shift to heavy and chemical industries (Chibber, 1999, Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003). Both countries started in import-substitution industrialization (ISI) in manufacturing consumer goods which provided major impetus in economic growth (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003) and then turned to capital-intensive producer goods that lead to the export-lead industrialization (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003, Chibber, 1999, Amsden, 1985). The active encouragement of export-oriented growth which a multitude of price and non-price measures was used to promote exports and discourage imports (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003). In addition, their eradication of corruption in society is important in building a developmental state (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003).

The developmental state model was truly a success to the states of Taiwan and South Korea, however, there were countries who emulated the said model, but failed to develop, one of them was India. The model, which demands obedience from the people, was made possible in the Korean and Taiwanese states due to their socially cohesive citizenries (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003). In addition, the influence of Confucianism in both countries on its people emphasized hierarchical authority, harmony, and order made the leadership and implementation of rules and policies an easy task for their respective governments (Srivamesh, 2004; Hasegawa and Noronha, 2009): this was utilized for state embeddedness in the society and economy. In the case of India, the people were, in historical and cultural context, stratified, and not used to be controlled, also, the development of liberalization in the country made it hard for the state to demand obedience from its citizens and implement policies and which hindered the state to be embedded in the society to initiate development (Herring, 1999). The aid given to the Taiwanese and South Korean states from America during the post-war period (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003; Khan, 2004; Amsden, 1985; Chibber, 1999) and the investment of Japanese capital mainly contributed to the initial developments of both countries (Andersson and Gunnarsson, 2003; Amsden, 1985; Chibber, 1999). In India, its costly wars with Pakistan due to regional division and unproductive military spending damaged and hinder development of its economy (Herring, 1999). Unlike South Korea and Taiwan, India was unable to impose land reform; discipline and regulate the capitalist class; unite