Two Competing Models of Development or One Model? The East Asian Miracle Revisited Based on a Taiwan-South Korea Comparison.

This paper examines the claims of the developmental state thesis insofar as they pertain to the facilitating of industrial transformation in Taiwan and Korea through an in-depth case study of the bicycle industry. I investigate how firms compete internationally in the context of state-led export development. The state-centric theory is chosen because it is the dominant theory in explaining the success of the East Asian tigers. The bicycle industry is chosen because it has the capacity to generate forward and backward linkages to the domestic societies, a capacity that development theorists consider to be an indicator of successful industrial development. My approach is contrary to that of the existing state-centric literature, which presents one model of East Asian development, attributing both Taiwan and Korea to the same model, or referring explicitly or implicitly to this model, which is really a Korean model of the state-large corporation nexus. I contend that there are, in fact, two competing paths/models of East Asian development. More specifically, I argue that existing social structures deserve attention. The differences in social structures created different relational dynamics between the state and society, despite the often-emphasized "state-autonomy," and, subsequently, gave rise to the different industrial structures in both countries, with respective consequences. The findings have important implications. As many late-late comers are emulating the so-called East Asian model (which is really the Korean model), without a proper understanding of the paths taken by both countries, they will be vulnerable to more financial crisis. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]