National security: Defense, development and self-reliance through defense industrialization--the case of South Korea

The dissertation have examined the changing nature of national security and the inevitable policy shift toward defense industrialization in South Korea. The search for national security through the acquisition of arms is understandable in a world in which states perceive themselves as ultimately responsible for their own security. Thus, defense planners often base their plans on "worst-case" scenarios, which frequently results in far more military preparation than the perceived needs and yields a severe burden on national economy.;This study began with a question about the concept of national security with special attention paid to the relationship between military preparedness and economic development. The exposed limits of security dependence and the heightened sense of vulnerability facilitated South Korea to pursue a self-reliant security posture. Thus, in addition to build self-reliant capabilities in military and economic sectors, the South Korean government justified political autonomy as a third requirement of national security.;As a strategy to satisfy these three fundamental security requirements--military preparedness, economic development, and political autonomy--South Korea adopted an indigenous defense industrialization in the early 1970s. South Korea has achieved remarkable progress in the defense industry in a short period of time. An examination of the South Korean case suggests several interesting implications in terms of theory and policy for the defense industrialization of developing countries. First of all, there are three conditions for the successful defense industrialization: motives (pushing factor), capability (facilitating factor) and political leadership and policy capacity (pulling factor). South Korea is one of typical case which these three conditions are well harmonized. Second, there are four constraints and limits of defense industrialization: technological dependency, economy of arms production, low-utilization and lay-offs, and conflict between self-production and effectiveness. I suggest five policy alternatives to solve these constraints: counter excess capacity measures, technological development, arms export, cooperation in arms production--partnership, co-production and co-development.;However, the rapidly changing international and regional environment pushes most arms producing countries for conversion and reshaping their defense industries. Thus, the future direction of study is one which can harmonize the improvement of defense industries and its conversion.