 Authoritarian developmental  Economic development  Improving citizen capability (human development)  Elite coalitions with local capitalists  Coherent, effective bureaucracies

 1950s: Land reform a key early success  Military coup (1961) start of authoritarian, developmental regime under Park  Main base of support – military  Forged alliance with capitalists to promote industrialization, economic development Unions repressed Anti-communist propaganda Elections rigged in favor of Democratic Republican Party (DRP), which had structural and financial advantage  Near-defeat by opposition initiated harsher authoritarianism and repression in 1970s  Military ruled until 1987 Ended with protests/demonstrations by students, workers, and middle class (created by regime’s developmental policies) demands for democratization

 Industrial policy  State-led industrialization Control over banks and assistance to particular industries/firms Huge, family-owned conglomerates (chaebol) (e.g., Daewoo, Hyundai, LG, Samsung) became competitive through industrial policy Did not lead to inefficient firms, theft of state funds Profitable industries required to repel North Capable bureaucrats in charge of economic planning (with real autonomy) Mutual interdependence between regime and firms  Social policy  Social spending aimed at advancing industrialization agenda (e.g., education) and legitimation

 Military (and Korean Central Intelligence Agency) – suppression, indoctrination  Economic institutions  Economic planning board; 5-year plans  Political parties (electoral machines; not programmatic)  Façade of democracy

 Democratic transition (1987)  Authoritarian developmental regime left mixed legacy  Strong economy; competent, effective bureaucracy; vibrant civil society  Feeble political parties; powerful corporations; increasing income inequality  New political cleavages  Division over how to approach North Korea  Social class  Older and younger (materialist, post-materialist)  New policies  Expansion of social spending (through cross-class coalition of workers and farmers, social movements, middle class activists); health care, unemployment, job training  Strengthened democratic institutions  More open elections; new political parties; more powerful legislature, judiciary  Still few programmatic political parties

 Predatory authoritarian  No economic/human development  Elites rely on narrow coalitions Pursue policies that enrich themselves and narrow network of supporters  Bureaucracies ineffective Widespread corruption and patronage

 British colonial legacy  Weak sense of nationhood  “Divide and rule” made ethnicity main line of division/political cleavage  Personal rule by “big men” rather than strong institutions  4 attempts at democratic rule, currently 4 th Republic (long periods of military rule)  Predatory regimes characterized by patron-client relations  Ruler  Big men  military/business people/regional leaders  clients (typically of same ethnic group)  Patronage/spoils = oil revenues, budget, contracts  divide and rule/repression

 Policies  Leaders main goal to accumulate wealth, not promote human development  Economic development enriches elite  Institutions  Government bureaucracies staffed through patronage appointments  Post-predatory regime  Transition to electoral democracy (1999)  Obstacles to democratic consolidation, human development Ethnic/religious cleavages Patron-client politics Weak institutions remain obstacles  Struggle over balance of power between central government and states; division of oil revenues; secular vs. shari’a law

 Developmental democratic  Commitment to improving capabilities of poorer citizens  Economic growth/development through market- oriented policies  Political parties build broad coalitions of support Support policies that appeal to large groups of voters  Effective/professional (merit-based) bureaucracies

 Post-Pinochet  Central cleavage is class  Conflict between landed and business elites (interested in maintaining wealth) and lower and middle classes (interested in more equitable distribution of income)  Concertacion leaders have attempted to balance interests of classes in a way that promotes capabilities of poorest groups  Assured elite by agreeing to maintain free-market policies, but with higher corporate and income taxes, and concessions to unions  Workers assured government will increase wages and bargaining power (tempered by need for international competitiveness) and improved access to health care, education, pension  Success due to:  Gradual reforms (in consultation with opposition)  Programmatic parties and business and labor federations  Highly competent civil service  Broad appeal among middle and working classes

 Policies  Economic growth  Improved access to education and health care for the poor  Strengthened democracy  Yet, income inequality remains high; business class remains powerful  Institutions  Limitation on ability of government to improve citizens’ capability even more; aspects designed to ensure conservative control over legislature Binomial electoral system Appointment of senators (ended in 2005) Super majority (3/5s) form amendments  Legislature and judiciary increasingly independent

 Fragmented democratic  Leaders form coalitions dominated by large farmers, big business, parts of middle class  Political parities are electoral machines Leaders rely on patronage, populism, identity politics  Civil service (bureaucracy) mixed Competent officials Highly politicized agencies headed by patronage appointments

 Developments post-WWII  Rapid industrialization, increasing conflict between social classes (landed elites/business interests and working class/peasants)  Military seized power in 1964 (ruled until 1985) Pursued growth through state-led industrialization Promoted industries; created state-owned enterprises Severely repressed working class and pressure for increased social spending for poor  Social class most important political cleavage  Extremely high income inequality; even higher wealth inequality; extreme inequalities in health care, safety, access to education  Race increasingly so given intersection between race and class  Fragmented political organizations  State corporatism used to divide working class (fragmented unions), dilute working class political power  Political parties fragmented  Widespread clientelism; need for broad coalitions/patronage to govern

 Recent presidents (Cardoso, Lula) have pursued policies aimed at promoting capabilities of poorest citizens  Prevention of severe economic crises  Movement away from state-led development toward market system  Successful in enacting increased social spending aimed at promoting citizens’ capabilities (health care, education) and affirmative action  Challenges  Significant room for improvement in citizens’ capabilities

 Fragmented party system  Fragmented bureaucracy (without autonomy and/or effectiveness)  Legislature fragmented  Rural bias in lower Chamber of Deputies  Open list PR increases personal/pork barrel politics and reduces party discipline  Federal system  Fragmentation of system makes it difficult for social democratic presidents to make significant strides in promoting developmental democratic regime  Politics of pork prevail over politics of class  Dominance of elite interests (business, land owners)