| 摘要: | 台灣與南韓因第二次世界大戰以來的高度經濟成長，皆曾被稱之為亞洲四小龍國家，其經濟成就更被喻為「東亞經濟奇蹟」，而學者在對台灣與南韓進行研究時，大致都認可國家在經濟發展上扮演重要之角色，亦經常以「發展型國家」之模式來解釋兩國的經濟發展過程。
過往台灣與南韓無論是經濟政策或政治制度的演變，確實有不少相似之處，然而在經歷1980年代政治民主化、1990年代經濟自由化與全球化浪潮之後，兩國展現出不同的樣貌，而真正關鍵的轉變，則源自1997年亞洲金融風暴後，台灣與南韓各自的因應方式與其影響，而即便當時南韓因金融風暴而受創嚴重，卻能在十餘年後競爭力大為提升，除了超越原先領先的台灣，更再次成為世界政治經濟舞台上的要角，而台灣卻呈現發展停滯的景況，間中的轉變引起筆者的好奇心。
本文試圖透過對兩國政治與經濟發展之歷程梳理與比較，呈現台灣與南韓自發展型國家的建立、面臨民主化與自由化所造成的鬆動衰弱，乃至於南韓重振其發展型國家模式，然而台灣卻逐漸喪失原有的發展型國家特質之過程，並分析對兩國差異之關鍵性因素，諸如國際環境因素，特別是中國崛起所帶來之經濟效應與兩國因應方式之區別，以及兩國經濟結構、政商關係與政治制度、政治生態、政治文化，乃至於台灣和南韓民族性與文化所塑造的價值觀與經濟行為差異，使得南韓得以保住國家有效執行政策的鑲嵌本質，從而維持其「國家自主」與「國家職能」，藉此尋求對南韓得以復甦的解釋，與國家在台灣發展的進程中卻逐漸退位之原因，而透過檢視「國家自主」與「國家職能」的變化，得以進行一個對發展型國家動向的討論。
而在南韓眾多產業中，文化產業在其國民經濟中占有重要地位，並帶有鮮明的政府主導性質，而台灣自2002年以來亦將文化產業視為發展之重，是以本文亦自兩國的文化產業政策中，去驗證發展型國家理論，而從本研究整理的內容則能發現，南韓政府引導文化產業發展走向所採取之作法，符合過往推動產業政策之模式，亦如前所言，發展歷程與其政治、經濟與社會環境和民族傳統文化息息相關，從而獲得高度成長，而台灣則在不同的社會價值所影響之經濟結構與政治生態下，導引出截然不同的發展面貌及成果。
Taiwan and South Korea’s rapid post-war economic growth resulted in both of these former Japanese colonies being named as one of the “Four Asian Tigers.” Moreover their economic achievements led to them being described as “Asian Economic Miracle.” However, when analyzing these two Asian Tiger economies, there’s general acknowledgement among scholars regarding the important drivers for this development. In particular we are regularly exposed to the “Developmental State” model theory when it comes to explaining their industrialization process.
During their initial phases of development in the aftermath of the Second World War, the economic policies and political structure of Taiwan and South Korea were remarkably similar. However, following the beginning of democratization in the 1980s, economic liberalization in the following decade, and the general trend towards globalization, these two successful economies’ embarked upon different development paths. The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis can be viewed as the defining watershed moment: both states were affected, but the means in which they responded to the crisis brought about a significant divergence in policy-making.
In the case of South Korea the nation was profoundly traumatized by this economic event. Nevertheless, this episode resulted in Seoul embarking on far-reaching policies which enhanced the county’s economic competitiveness a decade later; these reforms helped the country overtake Taiwan, which was previously the leading Asian Tiger. Ultimately Korea ascended and emerged as a leading country in terms of economically and politically in the international arena. However, at the same time its historic rival Taiwan was plunged into a state of stagnation during the same period of time. This remarkable turn of event captured the interest of the author.
By comparing these their political and economic progress, this book sought to demonstrate the fragility caused by democratization and liberalization. In addition, the author explains Seoul’s decision to revamp its development model, while Taipei gradually forfeited the characteristics of its original development path. Other areas of examination include analyzing the primary discrepancies of both Asian Tigers, such as geopolitical considerations, especially their relationship and response to an ascending China, their economic structure, the relationship between the prominent businesses and the state, the local political set-up and culture, and even both states’ differing ethnic and societal values which all played an important role in creating different paths toward development.
By analyzing the abovementioned considerations, this has allowed the author to provide a thorough explanation for Korea’s ascendancy: Seoul was able to effectively implement and uphold key policies; thereby maintaining its “National Autonomy” and “National Capability.” On the other hand, countries going down Taiwan’s course of development gradually lose their leading positions. Through careful examination of the concepts of “National Autonomy” and “National Capability”, as well as their gradual evolution, the author was able to advance a plausible theory to characterize the development paths of different emerging countries.
The cultural sector occupies an important place within the wider Korean economy and is rather distinct in the sense that it is government led. Since 2002, Taipei has also viewed the cultural sector as an important area for development. Using the main body of this book, the writer used cultural industry policies of these two states to demonstrate and reaffirm the “Developmental State Theory.” However, from the analysis of this book, it can pointed out that Seoul provided policy guidance for the cultural sector’s development. Moreover, in accordance with the previous economic development model, as mentioned, the process of development is very much interlinked with the Korea’s political, economic, social, and cultural environment.
Due to these compounding variables South Korea achieved strong, sustained economic growth, but Taiwan experienced considerably different outcomes owing its own unique societal, economic and political structure. |
