INDUSTRIALIZATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARATIVE CASE ANALYSIS IN BETWEEN SOUTH KOREA AND NEPAL = 산업화와 경제 발전 한국과 네팔의 비교 사례 분석

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The present study is a comparative study of industrialization path of South Korea and Nepal between 50's and 2010. The main idea is that the gap between the two is most readily accounted for by the differences in the quality of state capacity and institutions and how they influenced the design, maintenance and implementation of industrial policies. At the outset of the post-war period both countries were on a similar level of income, literacy and industrial development. However, South Korea has developed a disciplined developmental state that was able to transform limited capital, foreign aid and human resources into competitive manufacturing exports, whereas the decentralization of control, the frequent changes of government and relative weakness of policy continuity in Nepal has made it impossible for a similar development to take hold. The main analytical lens for this study is the developmental-state literature （Amsden, 1989; Woo, 1991） while the supporting lenses are Rostow's （1960） stages of growth, Hirschman's （1958） backward and forward linkages, and Lin's （2012） New Structural Economics. The comparison is based on 8 pre-defined criteria: Industrial policy; State capacity; Finance; Infrastructure; Human capital; Export structure; Foreign direct investment; Labour market outcomes. In this structure, sectoral case studies （Korean steel, shipbuilding and electronics industries; Nepali carpets and hydropower） are used as illustrative examples not as independent stories and the empirical tables are read analytically but not descriptively. The results suggest that the success of South Korea didn't depend on a particular instrument, such as subsidized credit, export targets or chaebol promotion. It was based on a coordinated package and linked to a discipline that was based on performance in order for the state assistance to result in tangible industrial results. The other face of the coin is illustrated in Nepal. Liberalization and aid inflows, however, even when they are well-intentioned, result in no structural change when institutional capacity is weak, and remittance dependence can prove to be a poor substitute for manufacturing. The thesis does not suggest that the Korean model can be directly applied to Nepal. The applicability of Korea's mid 20th century strategy to the present day in Nepal is country-specifically restricted due to geographic factors （landlocked）, political-economic factors （remittance reliance and a transition to federalism） and historical timing （late entry into the globalized economy）. The policy recommendations are thus prioritized and sequenced as follows: institutional reform and political stability; infrastructure and energy investment （in particular hydropower）; human-capital alignment; and only a selected and performance-conditioned industrial promotion in niches that are in line with Nepal's potential comparative advantage. This study makes a unique contribution to the comparative industrialization literature by highlighting the role of the quality and continuity of state institutions, long-term policy vision orientation, and the discipline in which public support is coupled to private performance in shaping the direction and speed of national industrialization.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1
• 1 Research Background 1
• 2 Research Objectives 2
• 3 Research Questions 3
• 4 Hypotheses 4
• 5 Methodology Summary 5
• 6 Scope and Limitations 6
• CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 6
• 1 Conceptual Framework: Relationships among Variables 6
• 2 Concept of Industrialization and Economic Development 10
• 3 Theories of Industrialization 10
• 4 Role of Government Policy and Institutions 12
• 5 The East Asian Developmental State Model (Primary Framework 14
• 6 New Structural Economics and Developing Economies 15
• 7 Capital Mobilization and Financial Systems 16
• CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 22
• 1 Research Design 22
• 2 Data Sources 23
• 3 Variables of Comparison and Fixed Criteria 25
• 4 Analytical Techniques 26
• 5 Methodological Limitations 27
• CHAPTER IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: SOUTH KOREA AND NEPAL 29
• 1 Historical Background 29
• 2 Industrial Policy 31
• 3 State Capacity and Institutional Quality 34
• 4 Finance and Capital Mobilization 37
• 5 Infrastructure 39
• 6 Human Capital and Education 40
• 7 Export Structure and Export Discipline 43
• 8 Foreign Direct Investment 45
• 9 Labour Market Outcomes 47
• 10 Sectoral Case Studies 49
• 11 Analytical Interpretation of Comparative Tables 57
• 12 Transferable and Non-Transferable Lessons 63
• CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65
• 1 Summary of Findings 65
• 2 Evaluation of the Research Hypotheses 67
• 3 Implications for Policy and Practice 69
• 4 Prioritized Recommendations for Nepal 71
• 5 Cautions on the Transferability of the Korean Model 74
• 6 Future Research Directions 76
• REFERENCES 77
• APPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTARY DATA TABLES 81
• Table A1 GDP per Capita Comparison in Current USD (Extended Series 81
• Table A2 Human Development Index and Education Indicators 82
• Table A3 Industrial Policy Effectiveness: Outcome Indicators Comparison 82
• 국문초록 84