| During the second oil crisis of the late 1970s, a dramatic policy reversal occurred in Korea. The character and functioning of this policy shift from "growth by any means" to "stabilization" can only be understood if they are seen collectively as instruments for coping with a political crisis as well as an economic contradiction, even though this change was partly a response to an unfavorable exogenous event like the second oil shock and previous policy failures.;The point of this study is to explain the causes, processes and consequences of this policy change with the aid of a comprehensive institutionalist perspective that links economic policy and the policy-making process to the dynamics between the structural constraints implicit in socio-economic organization and the empowerment of agents involved in the struggle for change.;Along this line, our analysis also incorporates careful consideration of the forces or actors at various levels, mainly as organized form, formally and conventionally, that shape these policy change processes and outcomes. First, it calls attention to power relationships in the structure and practice of the export-oriented industrialization policy of 18 years that had been led by the coalition of an authoritarian regime and large industrialists (chaebols). It, further, focuses on an underlying socio-economic structure and prodemocracy movement that not only opposed their country's authoritarian politics but was also increasingly able to resist the state's economic policy. In addition, it also examines intellectual innovations which the country's policy community of neo-liberal bureaucrats and technocrats helped produce, move into the power structure, and finally become reality in 1979 as the Comprehensive Stabilization Program. These innovations have persisted well into the 1980s, beyond the historical moment.;Our observation shows that if social conditions had a crucial influence on the rate of policy transformation, so too did the elite "sponsorship" at critical junctures. This study emphasizes that the Korean state became socialized not only through structural change within the society and the international system, but also through intersubjective understanding, shared expectation and on-the-job learning, while focusing especially on how political imperatives had a definite impact on the processes and outcome. It says that the most important consequence of this policy change is the erosion of etatism of the Korean state in governing the economy. |
