154KOREAN STUDIES, VOL. 23 the growing power of the chaebol, despite the fact that the state was becoming even more interventionist in the economy (pp. 137-152). Kim's analysis of the 1980s is equally, if not more, persuasive. It is ironic, then, that the evidence she uses to support her argument on the "decline of the developmental state" in chapter 6—such as growing collusion ("shady deals") between the chaebol and government officials; chaebol involvement in policy-making; and business' open defiance of important state policies, like fair trade legislation—was not unique to this period. It is ironic because the same things happened in the 1960s. Take the example of the Fair Trade and Anti-Monopoly Law of 1981: Kim points to the open defiance of this act by the chaebol to underscore the fundamentally changed nature of state-business relations in the 1980s (pp. 194-195). Yet, Kim neglects to point out that, in 1966, the state introduced similar legislation and was compelled to back down due to the "open defiance" of big business. This process, in fact, was repeated in 1969 and 1972. It is also fairly clear that the chaebol were involved in policymaking from the very beginning of the Park regime: the shift to EOI, as I noted above, almost certainly reflected the influence of the chaebol on state planners. It is even more certain that "shady deals" permeated state-business relations in the 1960s every bit as much as they did in the 1980s. The fact that Kim ignores these aspects of state-chaebol relations in the 1960s, but highlights them in the 1980s, only goes to buttress my point that the dominance of the state was never as complete or one-sided as we have been led to believe. Despite my obvious misgivings, I believe that Big Business, Strong State is a valuable and much-needed contribution to the literature on capitalist development in South Korea. Kim's book, at the least, will serve as an important building block: she has opened up new ways of thinking about state-business relations in Korea, and she has admirably illuminated the inherent limitations and contradictions of the "developmental state." Timothy C. Lim California State University, Los Angeles The MajorPowers ofNortheastAsia: Seeking Peace andSecurity, edited by Tae-Hwan Kwak and Edward A. Olsen. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1996. 264 pp. $52.00 cloth. This well-produced conference volume is in many ways a sterling example of the genre. Despite the inevitable erosion of its timeliness in a fast-changing region ofthe world, it holds up well to current needs ofteachers and researchers, for the basic reason that the editors have paid particular attention to the dimensions of that very dynamism. BOOK REVIEWS155 Before turning to some of the highlights of the earlier chapters, it is worth touching on the themes of the brief conclusion. Here, the co-editors hold that the changing world in which Northeast Asia must function "is no longer as clearly influenced by the United States"; rather the region is confronting a "Sino-Japanese balance of power possessing political, economic and military dimensions" (p. 244). It is reasonable to assert that the current Asian financial crisis has placed such an analytical viewpoint under a harsh spotlight. Bruce Cumings, to cite one of the more controversial critics, has recently stated in an article in New Left Review (no. 231, September 1998, pp. 43-72) that "the deep meaning of the Asian crisis . . . lies in the American attempt to bring down the curtain on late development of the Japanese-Korean type" (p. 45). Cumings need go no further than the columns of the mainstream press to find evidence of direct influence of U.S. decision makers (see his subheading "How Robert Rubin Rewrote the Rules of Korean Political Economy"). While he concludes that "Washington's enduring regional configuration is suddenly shaky," Cumings's point is that the International Monetary Fund has tilted the game back in favor of the United States and the advanced industrial countries. While Kwak and Olsen may not have anticipated this precise development , they foresaw something of the kind: "readers . . . who know how the United States resolved its debate about...
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Jan 1, 2002
Dong‐Jin Jang 
Open Access