2
Introduction
Why did some countries succeed in industrializing while others lagged behind? This
essay revisits the debate on the formula for successful industrialization with a systematic
comparison of South Korea and Indonesia since 1945. Both states shared many characteristics of
“developmental states,” including long periods of military-technocratic rule. Nevertheless,
Indonesia has lagged far behind South Korea economically even though Indonesian leaders have
lacked neither the will nor the capacity to succeed.
The literature on the Korean “miracle” is voluminous but few have paid attention to the
absence of organized opposition to capitalist development in South Korea up until the late 1970s.
A comparison of Indonesia and South Korea, as I will show, makes clear the importance of this
factor in late industrialization. Such opposition repeatedly frustrated capitalist development in
Indonesia during the same period. Why, then, was Indonesia “burdened” with so much popular
opposition while the Korean state was “blessed” with social submission?
Part of the answer, I argue, has to be found in the complex history of state building
during decolonization in both countries. The two countries took very different paths. In South
Korea, decolonization was characterized by elite polarization and mass repression, whereas in
Indonesia, elite compromise and mass incorporation was the dominant trend. In the former, the
process produced a strong state well insulated from social forces. In the latter, the state became
stymied by competing demands from their constituencies and unable to execute developmental
goals. After reviewing alternative arguments and comparing the records of economic
development and state-society relations in both countries, I will elaborate on the different paths
of decolonization they took.
Convention