Capitalist Development and Economic Outcomes of the State in Indonesia and South Korea: A Marxist View

Muhammad Ridha

Abstract


This paper aims to understand why similar efforts of state intervention in Indonesia and South Korea can generate different economic outcomes. Arguing against three main theoretical positions on the economic outcomes of state intervention, this article mobilizes Marxist approach which suggests that the different economic outcomes of state intervention can be traced back to the different trajectory of capitalist development. It arguest that the different trajectory was conditioned by specific form of class struggle between labor and capital in each countries, which is shaped by the influence of imperialist power --particularly through the role of the United States— as a part to maintain its influence in each countries region. This different trajectory yields different character and capacity of the capitalist class that rule the state in each countries, which in turn determines the economic outcome of the state policies.

Keywords


State; Class Struggle; Capitalist Development

References


Allinson, J. C. and Anievas, A. The Uses and Misuses of Uneven and Combined Development: An Anatomy of a Concept. Cambridge Review of International Affair 22 (1), pp: 47-67.

Anderson, B. R. G., & McVey, R. T. (2009). A preliminary analysis of the October 1, 1965 coup in Indonesia. Equinox Publishing.

Barone, C. E. (1983). Dependency, Marxist theory, and salvaging the idea of capitalism in South Korea. Review of Radical Political Economics, 15(1), 43-67.

Bukharin, N. (1917). Imperialism and World Economy. London: Martin Lawrence Limited.

Chang, D. O. (2009). Capitalist development in Korea: Labour, capital and the myth of the developmental state. Routledge.

Cumings, B. (2005). Korea's place in the sun: A modern history (Updated). WW Norton & Company.

Engels, F. (1978). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.Hay, C., Lister, M., & Marsh, D. (Eds.). (2006). The State: Theories and Issues. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Erken, H. (2017). Why emerging economies are (un)successful in avoiding the middle income trap. Rabobank.

Evans, P. B. (1989, December). Predatory, developmental, and other apparatuses: A comparative political economy perspective on the third world state. Sociological Forum, 4(4), pp. 561-587).

Glassman, J., & Choi, Y. J. (2014). The Chaebol and the US Military Industrial Complex: Cold War Geopolitical Economy and South Korean Industrialization. Environment and Planning A, 46(5), 1160-1180.

Hart-Landsberg, M. (1988). South Korea: The "Miracle" Rejected. Critical Sociology, 15(3), 29-51.

Ishida, M. (2003). Industrialization in Indonesia since the 1970s (No. 5). Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO).

Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory: Putting Capitalist State in its Place. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: the growth of industrial policy: 1925-1975. Stanford University Press.

Kang, D. C. (2002). Bad loans to good friends: money politics and the developmental state in South Korea. International organization, 56(1), 177-207.

Kim, S. & Park, S. (2007). A Critical Reappraisal of the Park Chung Hee System. In Hart-Landsberg, M., Jeong, S., & Westra, R. (Eds.). (2007). Marxist perspectives on South Korea in the global economy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Kohli, A. (1994). Where do high growth political economies come from? The Japanese lineage of Korea's “developmental state”. World Development, 22(9), 1269-1293.

Lenin, V. I. (1968). State and Revolution. International publishers.

Lenin, V. I. (1999). Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism. Resistance Books.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1948). The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publisher.

Marx, K. (1981). Capital, Volume III, translated by David Fernbach. New York and London: Penguin Books.

McGill, V. J., & Parry, W. T. (1948). The unity of opposites: a dialectical principle. Science & Society, 418-444.

Mintz, J. S. (1965). Mohammed, Marx, and Marhaen: the roots of Indonesian socialism. Praeger.

Moudud, J. K. (2010). Strategic Competition, Dynamics, and the Role of the State. Cheltenham and Massachusetts: Edwar Elgar.

Poulantzas, N. (1980). State, Power, Socialism. London: Verso.

Pratap, S. (2014). Emerging Trends in Factory Asia. Asia Monitor Resource Centre.

Rianto, S. (2013). Pemberitaan Kedaulatan Rakyat terhadap Kebijakan Restrukturisasi dan Rasionalisasi Angkatan Perang 1947-1948. Doctoral dissertation. Universitas Airlangga.

Robinson, J., & Acemoglu, R. (2012). Why nations fail. Crown Publishing Group.

Robison, R. (1978). Toward a class analysis of the Indonesian military bureaucratic state. Indonesia, (25), 17-39.

Robison, R. (1986). Indonesia: The rise of capital. Equinox Publishing.

Robison, R. & Hadiz, V. R. (2004). Reorganizing Power in Indonesia: The political oligarchy in an age of market.

Roosa, J. (2006). Pretext for Mass Murder: the September 30th Movement and Suharto's coup d'état in Indonesia. University of Wisconsin Press.

Shaikh, A. (1980). Marxian competition versus perfect competition: further comments on the so-called choice of technique. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 4(1), 75-83.

Shaikh, A. (2016). Capitalism: Competition, conflict, crises. Oxford University Press.

Skocpol, T. (1985). “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research”. Skocpol, T., Evans, P. B., & Rueschemeyer, D. Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge.

Vu, T. (2007). State formation and the origins of developmental states in South Korea and Indonesia. Studies in comparative international development, 41(4), 27-56.

White, N. J. (2012). Surviving Sukarno: British Business in Post-Colonial Indonesia, 1950–1967. Modern Asian Studies, 46(5), 1277-1315.

Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. Cambridge University Press.

You, J. S. (2005). Embedded autonomy or crony capitalism? Explaining corruption in South Korea, relative to Taiwan and the Philippines, focusing on the role of land reform and industrial policy. In delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September (pp. 1-47).




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/ipsr.v3i2.14227

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018 Politik Indonesia: Indonesian Political Science Review

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/