In an increasingly competitive, globalized world, developing countries face the daunting task of enhancing economic growth while keeping social inequality low—a particularly key problem for developing countries that seek to mitigate sociopolitical conflict as well as spur the economy. Political scientist Judith Teichman's Social Forces and States: Poverty and Distributional Outcomes in South Korea, Chile, and Mexico traces the historical origins of equitable development in East Asia and exclusionary development in Latin America. The literature on developmental states has focused on explaining divergent outcomes in two continents—why East Asian countries achieved rapid economic growth while their Latin American counterparts failed.Footnote 28 Teichman's work extends this existing debate by looking at poverty and equality outcomes beyond economic growth.
Teichman ranks South Korea as the most successful of the three countries in reducing poverty and achieving social equality, followed by Chile, with Mexico as the least successful. According to her analysis, South Korea's equitable development occurred under favorable historical conditions that produced a strong, single-minded state free to pursue capitalist growth—an absence of traditional landowning classes, the elimination of popular class activism through repression, and the political inclusion of the small peasantry, all results of land reform (p. 31). Thus, on the eve of industrialization, the state was able to implement its economic policies without any effective challenges from domestic social forces. Beginning in the 1960s, the regime, with its social base in the peasantry, promoted measures that ensured rural social welfare and created employment through export-oriented industrial growth, which contributed to poverty reduction and low social inequality (p. 169).
By contrast, the weak Chilean and Mexican states, permeated by propertied, working-class, and middle-class interests, produced suboptimal economic strategies, unequal welfare regimes, and neglect of rural regions (p. 24). In both countries the development of mining exports contributed to the strength of propertied interests that blocked redistributive measures, and the radicalization of the left triggered harsh reactions against popular mobilization. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, the Chilean state succeeded in reducing poverty through state-led export expansion, while civil society activism also contributed to social equality (p. 25). In the meantime, Mexico fell further behind its two counterparts. Radical market reforms worsened social inequality by benefiting the already rich and powerful and harming the rural indigenous population (p. 132).
Teichman's book makes important scholarly contributions. First of all, her comparative historical analysis clearly delineates why some counties perform better than others in reducing poverty and social inequality. While previous studies mainly analyze state structures or state-business relations (though there are some exceptions, such as Diane Davis's analysis of the state–middle-class relations in Discipline and Development: Middle Classes and Prosperity in East Asia and Latin America [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004]), Teichman highlights interactions between historical legacies, state institutions, and social forces (including elites, middle and working classes, and subordinated groups). By bringing diverse social actors and their relations into the picture, her analysis convincingly shows that the politics of redistribution is shaped by complicated class negotiations and conflicts. In particular, her conjunctural analysis is beneficial in the investigation of institutional changes, both path-dependence and reactive sequences. As she demonstrates, self-reinforcing mechanisms successfully promoted social equality and redistribution in South Korea, while reactive sequences stalled or blocked redistributive demands from below in Chile and Mexico.
In focusing mainly on economic growth during periods of industrialization, developmental state literature has failed to address issues of social inequality and welfare. Teichman pays attention to human developmental outcomes, including health, education, social protection, and labor. She makes a powerful case that development is constituted not only by economic efficiency but also by the overall well-being of the population. Furthermore, against arguments for the homogenizing effects of globalization, she demonstrates that state institutions respond differently to external pressures, thus playing a critical role in divergent social outcomes.
Despite these important contributions, Teichman is not entirely correct in her assessment of the Korean case as an equitable development model. She points out that labor market flexibility has led to insecurity, inequality, and lack of protection for workers (p. 143), but ignores the uncontrolled power of large business conglomerates, or chaebols, and their impact on the livelihood of ordinary Koreans. Though chaebols emerged under tight state control, their power has grown tremendously since the 1980s, and the entire national economy is subordinated to big businesses. Their aggressive strategies in the consumer market threaten the survival of small, local businesses, which in turn worsens social inequality.
Moreover, extensive structural adjustment programs implemented by chaebols have created labor market segmentation and exacerbated inequality. According to the Korean National Statistics Office, in 2005 a slight majority of the total workforce consisted of irregular workers, who received, on average, a little more than half the wages of regular employees, with almost no benefits.Footnote 29 The path to the middle class for younger workers, beset by low wages and job insecurity, is much more difficult than it was for previous generations. The widening gap in wages and welfare benefits between employees in chaebols and in medium- and small-sized businesses, and between regular and irregular workers, contributes to increasing social inequality. As a country where suicide rates are the highest among OECD nations and the second highest in the world,Footnote 30 the South Korean case demonstrates the potential consequences of growing inequality and weakening social integration.
These caveats aside, Teichman's book provides a compelling explanation of three different cases, with methodologically grounded analysis from a comparative perspective. By addressing intersecting issues of development, globalization, and social policy outcomes, Social Forces and States will attract scholars from comparative politics, sociology, development studies, and Asian and Latin American studies. For those who try to understand South Korea's unique developmental trajectory, this book gives a balanced, valuable approach.
