Diverging Development Paths of the Electronics Industry in Korea and Taiwan

This paper examines the process and mechanism of economic development in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan through a comparative analysis of the electronics industry in each country. The paper will show that in its initial stage of development, the electronics industry in both economies had the same type of dual structure: a domestic demand sector based on the protected domestic market, and an export sector intended to capitalize on low-wage labor for the international market. However, this dual structure in the two economies faded away after the mid-1970s as their respective indigenous export-oriented enterprises began to develop. But the primary industrial players in each economy were very different. In Korea they were comprehensive electronics manufacturers affiliated with chaebols, and in Taiwan they were small and medium-size enterprises. Differences in the two economies' development mechanisms have brought about this divergence in development paths. In Korea this mechanism has been characterized by the government's positive role and the chaebol's readiness to react to the government's leadership. In Taiwan the development mechanism has been based on the private sector independent from the government. As an extension of such diverged development paths, ICs and personal computers showed spectacular growth in Korea and Taiwan after the 1980s. The development of ICs in Korea was primarily the result of a decisive role played by the chaebol's sizable financial resources, while the competitiveness in personal computers largely reflected the agility and flexibility of Taiwanese small and medium-size enterprises.

An export strategy and technology networks in the Republic of Korea

In Korea, trade with Japan has had a deficit since the normalization of Japan-Korea diplomatic relations in 1965. Korea’s trade balance with Japan has remained in deficit since then, although Korean companies have become bigger compared to Japanese companies. My hypothesis is that the problem has been caused because Korea introduced technologies from Japan. However, in recent years Korean companies could not introduce technologies through technical cooperation with Japan like in the 1990s. In addition, the Korean government seemed to encourage domestic production for import substitution. Nevertheless, the deficit has continued. I thought it necessary to check my hypothesis in order to discover whether or not it was persuasive.